https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155741 The Tribunal held that a demand for undervaluation was time-barred because the department had already examined the same issue in 1996 and the appellant had responded, after which no further action was taken. On those facts, the relevant material was within the department's knowledge well before the show cause notice issued in January 2005, and there was no established suppression, misstatement, or mala fide conduct by the appellant. The amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was also already within Revenue's knowledge. The demand was therefore barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2013 14:45:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155741 The Tribunal held that a demand for undervaluation was time-barred because the department had already examined the same issue in 1996 and the appellant had responded, after which no further action was taken. On those facts, the relevant material was within the department's knowledge well before the show cause notice issued in January 2005, and there was no established suppression, misstatement, or mala fide conduct by the appellant. The amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was also already within Revenue's knowledge. The demand was therefore barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155741