https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243259 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act cannot be rejected without examining the statutory grounds for invocation, including fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Here, the Tribunal reversed factual findings that the ER-1 and Cenvat credit returns did not disclose payment of additional customs duty through DEPB adjustments and that the Bills of Entry were not produced, but it did not address those suppression findings or the legal ingredients for the extended period. Its limitation view was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243259 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act cannot be rejected without examining the statutory grounds for invocation, including fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Here, the Tribunal reversed factual findings that the ER-1 and Cenvat credit returns did not disclose payment of additional customs duty through DEPB adjustments and that the Bills of Entry were not produced, but it did not address those suppression findings or the legal ingredients for the extended period. Its limitation view was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243259