https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84702 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for duty was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was held that there was no evidence of intentional evasion of duty with mala fide intentions, emphasizing the appellant's transparency in disclosing relevant information since 1984. The Tribunal highlighted the burden of proof on the Department to establish fraud or collusion, which was not met in this case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside based on the grounds of limitation. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:08:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84702 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for duty was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was held that there was no evidence of intentional evasion of duty with mala fide intentions, emphasizing the appellant's transparency in disclosing relevant information since 1984. The Tribunal highlighted the burden of proof on the Department to establish fraud or collusion, which was not met in this case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside based on the grounds of limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84702