https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73209 Central excise demand was treated as time barred because the department did not prove suppression, intent to evade duty, or any other basis to extend limitation. The assessee had filed revised price lists, and the delay in doing so was not enough by itself to establish evasion. The allegation of non-furnishing of invoices was also unsubstantiated. Although provisional assessment under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sought, it was not granted, and the record did not show that the assessments remained open. The departmental appeal therefore failed and the Collector (Appeals) order was sustained. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2011 12:51:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73209 Central excise demand was treated as time barred because the department did not prove suppression, intent to evade duty, or any other basis to extend limitation. The assessee had filed revised price lists, and the delay in doing so was not enough by itself to establish evasion. The allegation of non-furnishing of invoices was also unsubstantiated. Although provisional assessment under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sought, it was not granted, and the record did not show that the assessments remained open. The departmental appeal therefore failed and the Collector (Appeals) order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73209