https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94585 A demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as subject to the six-month limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the notice did not allege fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or similar conduct. In those circumstances, the extended limitation period was unavailable, and the demand could not be enforced retrospectively for the period before the show cause notice. The record also indicated prior departmental awareness of the activity. The penalty was therefore set aside as consequential to the time-barred demand. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:14:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94585 A demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as subject to the six-month limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the notice did not allege fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or similar conduct. In those circumstances, the extended limitation period was unavailable, and the demand could not be enforced retrospectively for the period before the show cause notice. The record also indicated prior departmental awareness of the activity. The penalty was therefore set aside as consequential to the time-barred demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94585