https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212619 The tribunal set aside the demand of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, as the evidence did not support the allegations. The confiscation of footwear without retail sale price marking was deemed unjustified, given the ongoing marking process observed. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected due to lack of evidence of suppression of facts. The appellant's argument of the demand being time-barred and the retraction of statements were considered, leading to the appeal being allowed on 1-8-2011. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212619 The tribunal set aside the demand of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, as the evidence did not support the allegations. The confiscation of footwear without retail sale price marking was deemed unjustified, given the ongoing marking process observed. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected due to lack of evidence of suppression of facts. The appellant's argument of the demand being time-barred and the retraction of statements were considered, leading to the appeal being allowed on 1-8-2011. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212619