https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96159 Central excise duty demand was challenged on limitation, with the assessee arguing that no misdeclaration or suppression justified invocation of the extended period. The goods had been removed without duty on the footing that they were needed for maintenance and repairs, but they were found not to be machinery installed in the factory. The demand under Rule 196, read with Section 11A(1), was treated as part of a self-contained scheme, and the absence of fraud, collusion, suppression or wilful misstatement did not bar enforcement beyond the ordinary period in the facts found. The plea of time-bar was rejected and the demand was held enforceable. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:40:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96159 Central excise duty demand was challenged on limitation, with the assessee arguing that no misdeclaration or suppression justified invocation of the extended period. The goods had been removed without duty on the footing that they were needed for maintenance and repairs, but they were found not to be machinery installed in the factory. The demand under Rule 196, read with Section 11A(1), was treated as part of a self-contained scheme, and the absence of fraud, collusion, suppression or wilful misstatement did not bar enforcement beyond the ordinary period in the facts found. The plea of time-bar was rejected and the demand was held enforceable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96159