https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209162 The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision in favor of the respondent, ruling that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) was not invocable. The case involved a dispute over duty liability on work in progress goods during de-bonding, where the lower appellate authority found the demand time-barred. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of material fact suppression, emphasizing that the issuance of a no dues certificate without verifying pending dues negated the allegation. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2015 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209162 The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision in favor of the respondent, ruling that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) was not invocable. The case involved a dispute over duty liability on work in progress goods during de-bonding, where the lower appellate authority found the demand time-barred. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of material fact suppression, emphasizing that the issuance of a no dues certificate without verifying pending dues negated the allegation. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209162