https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125248 A duty demand raised beyond the normal limitation period could not be sustained where the penalty basis under Rule 173Q had already been found absent. The Tribunal noted that, once the lower appellate authority held that suppression and wilful misstatement were not made out and set aside the penalty, the proviso to Section 11AC could not be invoked to justify the extended period. Following the cited precedent, the demand was set aside because the allegation of intent to evade duty had no supporting foundation. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125248 A duty demand raised beyond the normal limitation period could not be sustained where the penalty basis under Rule 173Q had already been found absent. The Tribunal noted that, once the lower appellate authority held that suppression and wilful misstatement were not made out and set aside the penalty, the proviso to Section 11AC could not be invoked to justify the extended period. Following the cited precedent, the demand was set aside because the allegation of intent to evade duty had no supporting foundation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125248