https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201790 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be sustained where the excisability of cigarettes drawn for quality tests was under bona fide dispute and the Department already knew the material facts through continuing correspondence and prior proceedings. The demand for the earlier period was based on estimates and assumptions rather than contemporaneous records, and the essential ingredients of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty were not established. On that basis, the CESTAT's setting aside of the demand was upheld. en-us Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201790 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be sustained where the excisability of cigarettes drawn for quality tests was under bona fide dispute and the Department already knew the material facts through continuing correspondence and prior proceedings. The demand for the earlier period was based on estimates and assumptions rather than contemporaneous records, and the essential ingredients of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty were not established. On that basis, the CESTAT's setting aside of the demand was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201790