https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257800 Where the department already possessed the relevant facts from an earlier inspection and show-cause proceedings based on the same material, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because no subsequent suppression or fraud was established. The resulting duty demand was therefore time-barred. Once the demand failed on limitation, the penalty under Rule 173-Q, which depended on the same allegation of suppression and contravention, could not survive and was also set aside. en-us Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257800 Where the department already possessed the relevant facts from an earlier inspection and show-cause proceedings based on the same material, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because no subsequent suppression or fraud was established. The resulting duty demand was therefore time-barred. Once the demand failed on limitation, the penalty under Rule 173-Q, which depended on the same allegation of suppression and contravention, could not survive and was also set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257800