https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54186 Removals of cotton yarn under Rule 96E to the same manufacturer's units, when supported by AR-3A forms, challans, re-warehousing acknowledgments and monthly returns, were treated as properly disclosed movements rather than clandestine clearances, so duty could not be confirmed merely because the department viewed the procedure differently. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the clearances were reflected in prescribed records and there was no suppression or wilful misstatement, making the demand time-barred. Once the demand failed on merits and limitation, penalty could not survive. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 09 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:24:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54186 Removals of cotton yarn under Rule 96E to the same manufacturer's units, when supported by AR-3A forms, challans, re-warehousing acknowledgments and monthly returns, were treated as properly disclosed movements rather than clandestine clearances, so duty could not be confirmed merely because the department viewed the procedure differently. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the clearances were reflected in prescribed records and there was no suppression or wilful misstatement, making the demand time-barred. Once the demand failed on merits and limitation, penalty could not survive. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54186