https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88080 Extended limitation for a duty demand was held unsustainable because the manufacturer had informed the department about the storage steel tank, sought approval of the plant, and the Superintendent approved it; regular inspections by the Central Excise Inspector also showed departmental knowledge of the facts. On that record, the tank could not be said to have escaped notice, so a notice issued in 1989 for goods manufactured in 1985 fell beyond the permissible extended period. The duty demand therefore failed on limitation, without any need to decide whether the steel tank was immovable property. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:39:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88080 Extended limitation for a duty demand was held unsustainable because the manufacturer had informed the department about the storage steel tank, sought approval of the plant, and the Superintendent approved it; regular inspections by the Central Excise Inspector also showed departmental knowledge of the facts. On that record, the tank could not be said to have escaped notice, so a notice issued in 1989 for goods manufactured in 1985 fell beyond the permissible extended period. The duty demand therefore failed on limitation, without any need to decide whether the steel tank was immovable property. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88080