https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86835 Limitation under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 was treated as decisive where no misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty was established. On that basis, the demand was held to be time-barred. The Tribunal also accepted that the limitation plea had been raised but omitted from the earlier order because related appeals were heard together and arguments were adopted in both matters. That omission was treated as an error apparent on the record, and the order was rectified to reflect the limitation finding. en-us Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:46:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86835 Limitation under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 was treated as decisive where no misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty was established. On that basis, the demand was held to be time-barred. The Tribunal also accepted that the limitation plea had been raised but omitted from the earlier order because related appeals were heard together and arguments were adopted in both matters. That omission was treated as an error apparent on the record, and the order was rectified to reflect the limitation finding. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86835