https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92457 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand for duty was time-barred and there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The appellant's belief that they were not liable for duty was deemed reasonable, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief. The duty demand, penalties, and confiscation were quashed based on the extended period for issuing the show cause notice not being applicable in this case. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions did not indicate an intent to evade duty, supported by previous orders and lack of response from Central Excise authorities. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:11:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92457 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand for duty was time-barred and there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The appellant's belief that they were not liable for duty was deemed reasonable, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief. The duty demand, penalties, and confiscation were quashed based on the extended period for issuing the show cause notice not being applicable in this case. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions did not indicate an intent to evade duty, supported by previous orders and lack of response from Central Excise authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92457