https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90371 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the existence of both units and the relevant clearances, and the classification lists were filed and accepted. On those facts, suppression, wilful misstatement, and intent to evade duty were not established, so the central excise demand was time barred and unsustainable. For the same reason, penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not justified, as no deliberate contravention with evasion was shown. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:42:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90371 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the existence of both units and the relevant clearances, and the classification lists were filed and accepted. On those facts, suppression, wilful misstatement, and intent to evade duty were not established, so the central excise demand was time barred and unsustainable. For the same reason, penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not justified, as no deliberate contravention with evasion was shown. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90371