https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72180 Extended limitation for central excise demand under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the department had not proved fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; constructive knowledge from a trade notice was insufficient. The demand for differential duty was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and was time-barred. The penalty under central excise law was not disturbed, as the goods were treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 68, compliance obligations applied, and no effective challenge was advanced against the penalty. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2011 10:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72180 Extended limitation for central excise demand under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the department had not proved fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; constructive knowledge from a trade notice was insufficient. The demand for differential duty was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and was time-barred. The penalty under central excise law was not disturbed, as the goods were treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 68, compliance obligations applied, and no effective challenge was advanced against the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72180