https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53115 For the pre-28 September 1996 period, depot sale prices could not be used to demand excise duty where valuation under Section 4 remained governed by ex-factory prices. In the absence of suppression or incorrect disclosure, the extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked, and the differential duty demand was unsustainable. Because the duty demand failed, penalty could not survive; moreover, Sections 11AB and 11AC applied only from 28 September 1996 and could not be applied retrospectively. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also not sustainable once extended limitation failed, so the demand, interest, and penal liabilities were set aside. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:14:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53115 For the pre-28 September 1996 period, depot sale prices could not be used to demand excise duty where valuation under Section 4 remained governed by ex-factory prices. In the absence of suppression or incorrect disclosure, the extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked, and the differential duty demand was unsustainable. Because the duty demand failed, penalty could not survive; moreover, Sections 11AB and 11AC applied only from 28 September 1996 and could not be applied retrospectively. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also not sustainable once extended limitation failed, so the demand, interest, and penal liabilities were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53115