https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100311 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the demand of duty was outside the normal time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument for invoking the extended period due to alleged suppression of facts, noting that the appellants had informed the Department about relevant details. As a result, the impugned order was set aside solely on the basis of the time limit issue, without addressing the merits of the case. The judgment underscored the significance of timely communication and adherence to statutory obligations, leading to the appeal's success on the time limit ground. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:24:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100311 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the demand of duty was outside the normal time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument for invoking the extended period due to alleged suppression of facts, noting that the appellants had informed the Department about relevant details. As a result, the impugned order was set aside solely on the basis of the time limit issue, without addressing the merits of the case. The judgment underscored the significance of timely communication and adherence to statutory obligations, leading to the appeal's success on the time limit ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100311