https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115162 The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by M/s. Laxmi Iron & Steel Rerolling Mills Ltd. and Shri D.N. Jain, Partner, ruling in their favor. The demand of Central Excise duty was found to be time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal determined that the demand exceeded the normal six-month limitation period and could not be sustained based on the retrospective amendment to Section 11A, as there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, mis-declaration, or suppression of facts by the Appellants. The decision emphasized that the extended period of limitation could only apply in specific circumstances not present in this case. en-us Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 13:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115162 The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by M/s. Laxmi Iron & Steel Rerolling Mills Ltd. and Shri D.N. Jain, Partner, ruling in their favor. The demand of Central Excise duty was found to be time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal determined that the demand exceeded the normal six-month limitation period and could not be sustained based on the retrospective amendment to Section 11A, as there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, mis-declaration, or suppression of facts by the Appellants. The decision emphasized that the extended period of limitation could only apply in specific circumstances not present in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115162