https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124604 The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Rattan Steel Works and its partner, Shri Harjit Singh, setting aside the impugned order due to the time-barred nature of the demand notice issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The appeal by the Revenue was unsuccessful as the demand and penalties were deemed unsustainable under Section 11A, with the longer period for demanding duty not applicable in this case. The case involved challenges to the demand of duty, confiscation of assets, penalties imposed on partners, alleged evasion of Central Excise duty, and discrepancies in production quantities and power consumption. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Sep 2017 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124604 The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Rattan Steel Works and its partner, Shri Harjit Singh, setting aside the impugned order due to the time-barred nature of the demand notice issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The appeal by the Revenue was unsuccessful as the demand and penalties were deemed unsustainable under Section 11A, with the longer period for demanding duty not applicable in this case. The case involved challenges to the demand of duty, confiscation of assets, penalties imposed on partners, alleged evasion of Central Excise duty, and discrepancies in production quantities and power consumption. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124604