https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125285 The demand was held time-barred because the department could not establish suppression of facts to invoke the extended limitation period. The goods had been cleared for exhibition without duty, later re-imported and removed after credit was taken, and the department's contemporaneous correspondence showed awareness of the transaction. The assessed value was only marginally higher than the declared export value, and the demand had been confirmed under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 rather than under the proviso for extended limitation, with suppression discussed only in the penalty context. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the appeal succeeded. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:19:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125285 The demand was held time-barred because the department could not establish suppression of facts to invoke the extended limitation period. The goods had been cleared for exhibition without duty, later re-imported and removed after credit was taken, and the department's contemporaneous correspondence showed awareness of the transaction. The assessed value was only marginally higher than the declared export value, and the demand had been confirmed under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 rather than under the proviso for extended limitation, with suppression discussed only in the penalty context. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125285