https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100999 Excise duty demand was held time-barred because the relevant facts were already known to visiting officers, the assessee had disclosed the manufacture process during inspection, and the record lacked any specific pleading or proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty; on that basis, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. Penalty under Section 11AC was also held unsustainable because that provision commenced only from 28 September 1996 and could not be applied retrospectively to an earlier duty period. The assessee therefore succeeded on both limitation and penalty. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:30:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100999 Excise duty demand was held time-barred because the relevant facts were already known to visiting officers, the assessee had disclosed the manufacture process during inspection, and the record lacked any specific pleading or proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty; on that basis, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. Penalty under Section 11AC was also held unsustainable because that provision commenced only from 28 September 1996 and could not be applied retrospectively to an earlier duty period. The assessee therefore succeeded on both limitation and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100999