https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121090 Excise demand was held unsustainable because the Department already knew the relevant facts, yet issued the show cause notice after about four years, so the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The confirmation also failed because it relied only on an alleged assurance by the assessee to pay duty if buyers for the machinery were not found by a stated date, and such an assurance could not replace legal authority for raising or confirming a duty demand. The assessee therefore succeeded on both limitation and absence of a valid legal basis for the demand. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:12:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121090 Excise demand was held unsustainable because the Department already knew the relevant facts, yet issued the show cause notice after about four years, so the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The confirmation also failed because it relied only on an alleged assurance by the assessee to pay duty if buyers for the machinery were not found by a stated date, and such an assurance could not replace legal authority for raising or confirming a duty demand. The assessee therefore succeeded on both limitation and absence of a valid legal basis for the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121090