https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81711 Central excise duty demand was challenged on limitation, with the extended period found unavailable because the show cause notice did not clearly allege suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement. The notice only stated that chemical test results showed the goods were not eligible for exemption and duty was payable at tariff rate, which did not disclose the jurisdictional basis needed to extend limitation. A wrong rule reference and later corrigendum did not cure that defect because the foundation for invoking extended limitation had to appear in the notice itself or be plainly inferable from it. The demand was therefore time barred and the confirmation of duty could not stand. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:27:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81711 Central excise duty demand was challenged on limitation, with the extended period found unavailable because the show cause notice did not clearly allege suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement. The notice only stated that chemical test results showed the goods were not eligible for exemption and duty was payable at tariff rate, which did not disclose the jurisdictional basis needed to extend limitation. A wrong rule reference and later corrigendum did not cure that defect because the foundation for invoking extended limitation had to appear in the notice itself or be plainly inferable from it. The demand was therefore time barred and the confirmation of duty could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81711