https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119393 The Tribunal held that the duty demand was prima facie barred by limitation because the Revenue was already aware that the parts and components arose during manufacture of railway wagons, and the omission to file the declaration under Rule 173B was not shown to be mala fide or intended to evade duty. In the absence of suppression of facts or wilful default, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable at least at the prima facie stage, and unconditional stay was granted to the assessee. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119393 The Tribunal held that the duty demand was prima facie barred by limitation because the Revenue was already aware that the parts and components arose during manufacture of railway wagons, and the omission to file the declaration under Rule 173B was not shown to be mala fide or intended to evade duty. In the absence of suppression of facts or wilful default, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable at least at the prima facie stage, and unconditional stay was granted to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119393