https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126674 CESTAT, AHMEDABAD allowed the appeal in part, holding that differing Board circulars (2002 and 2005) and post-rule interpretations made invocation of the extended limitation period impermissible. Demand beyond the one-year limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be sustained and the penalty imposed is set aside. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to compute and recover duty, if any, strictly within the one-year limitation period. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126674 CESTAT, AHMEDABAD allowed the appeal in part, holding that differing Board circulars (2002 and 2005) and post-rule interpretations made invocation of the extended limitation period impermissible. Demand beyond the one-year limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be sustained and the penalty imposed is set aside. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to compute and recover duty, if any, strictly within the one-year limitation period. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126674