https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124568 The Tribunal held that the duty demand raised for the control panels beyond the limitation period was barred by limitation. Despite the Revenue's argument that complete description was not provided, the Tribunal found that the facts were disclosed in the documents submitted by the appellant. The demand was considered a 'change of view' rather than evasion of duty. As the demand was not based on new information or intention to evade duty, it lacked legal standing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed solely on the ground of the demand being raised beyond the limitation period. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:12:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124568 The Tribunal held that the duty demand raised for the control panels beyond the limitation period was barred by limitation. Despite the Revenue's argument that complete description was not provided, the Tribunal found that the facts were disclosed in the documents submitted by the appellant. The demand was considered a 'change of view' rather than evasion of duty. As the demand was not based on new information or intention to evade duty, it lacked legal standing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed solely on the ground of the demand being raised beyond the limitation period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124568