https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94138 Limitation governed the excise demand because the dispute on includibility of the cost of bushes dropped out, leaving only whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could apply. The lower appellate authority's finding that the Department knew the relevant process and that the extended period was unavailable was not successfully challenged on merits. The ground urged in appeal relied on a different allegation of suppression from the one in the show-cause notice, so it could not justify extended limitation. The demand was therefore time-barred and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:00:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94138 Limitation governed the excise demand because the dispute on includibility of the cost of bushes dropped out, leaving only whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could apply. The lower appellate authority's finding that the Department knew the relevant process and that the extended period was unavailable was not successfully challenged on merits. The ground urged in appeal relied on a different allegation of suppression from the one in the show-cause notice, so it could not justify extended limitation. The demand was therefore time-barred and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94138