https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80420 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal against the Collector of Central Excise's order regarding yarn count discrepancy. The appellant's argument that there was no suppression of facts was accepted. The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional manipulation or deliberate concealment by the appellants. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling requiring positive evidence for an extended limitation period, the demand was limited to six months from the show cause notice date, and the penalty was revoked. The appeal succeeded due to the lack of proof supporting the allegation of suppression. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:54:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80420 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal against the Collector of Central Excise's order regarding yarn count discrepancy. The appellant's argument that there was no suppression of facts was accepted. The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional manipulation or deliberate concealment by the appellants. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling requiring positive evidence for an extended limitation period, the demand was limited to six months from the show cause notice date, and the penalty was revoked. The appeal succeeded due to the lack of proof supporting the allegation of suppression. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80420