https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102447 The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, upholding the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant company. The court determined the effective date of the amalgamation to be 1-4-99, rejecting the appellant's claim of 24-12-99. The clubbing of clearances and duty liability post-amalgamation was upheld, despite the registration date discrepancy. The court found the excise department's demand not time-barred due to the suppression of material facts regarding the amalgamation, justifying the extended limitation period invoked. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the duty demand and penalties. en-us Wed, 08 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:26:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102447 The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, upholding the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant company. The court determined the effective date of the amalgamation to be 1-4-99, rejecting the appellant's claim of 24-12-99. The clubbing of clearances and duty liability post-amalgamation was upheld, despite the registration date discrepancy. The court found the excise department's demand not time-barred due to the suppression of material facts regarding the amalgamation, justifying the extended limitation period invoked. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the duty demand and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102447