https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207074 The appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the time bar upheld on the Revenue's claim due to a show cause notice issued in 1999. The CESTAT erred in holding the notice time-barred for a demand related to availing credit twice, indicating potential wilful mistake or suppression of facts. The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the Department to establish fraud for extended limitation periods under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The judgment clarifies the importance of proving fraud or wilful misstatement to extend limitation periods and the shifting burden of proof onto the assessee in such cases. en-us Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207074 The appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the time bar upheld on the Revenue's claim due to a show cause notice issued in 1999. The CESTAT erred in holding the notice time-barred for a demand related to availing credit twice, indicating potential wilful mistake or suppression of facts. The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the Department to establish fraud for extended limitation periods under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The judgment clarifies the importance of proving fraud or wilful misstatement to extend limitation periods and the shifting burden of proof onto the assessee in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207074