https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83448 The tribunal set aside the lower authority's order, ruling that the demand was not maintainable due to the limitation period. The appellants' additional evidence was admitted, supporting their claim that the demand was time-barred. The tribunal found that the authorities were aware of the brand name usage and delayed action based on uncertainties about the products, refuting the allegation of suppression against the appellants. The appellants were deemed eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86, and no duty could be demanded beyond six months. en-us Thu, 19 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:46:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83448 The tribunal set aside the lower authority's order, ruling that the demand was not maintainable due to the limitation period. The appellants' additional evidence was admitted, supporting their claim that the demand was time-barred. The tribunal found that the authorities were aware of the brand name usage and delayed action based on uncertainties about the products, refuting the allegation of suppression against the appellants. The appellants were deemed eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86, and no duty could be demanded beyond six months. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83448