https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233380 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the Department was not justified in invoking the extended five-year period for raising the duty demand. It was determined that there was no evidence of fraud, concealment, or suppression of facts by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the demand raised beyond the one-year period was barred by limitation. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was accepted. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233380 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the Department was not justified in invoking the extended five-year period for raising the duty demand. It was determined that there was no evidence of fraud, concealment, or suppression of facts by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the demand raised beyond the one-year period was barred by limitation. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was accepted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233380