https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174253 Central excise duty demand on site-assembled DG sets was held time-barred because the manufacturer acted under a bona fide belief supported by an existing departmental circular and trade notice, and there was no sustainable suppression of facts to justify the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal treated the assembly and clearance of DG sets as excisable goods under Heading 85.02, but confined recovery to the normal period and rejected the extended period invocation. Once the demand failed on limitation, the penalties imposed on the manufacturer, its officer, and customers under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were consequentially set aside. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:41:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174253 Central excise duty demand on site-assembled DG sets was held time-barred because the manufacturer acted under a bona fide belief supported by an existing departmental circular and trade notice, and there was no sustainable suppression of facts to justify the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal treated the assembly and clearance of DG sets as excisable goods under Heading 85.02, but confined recovery to the normal period and rejected the extended period invocation. Once the demand failed on limitation, the penalties imposed on the manufacturer, its officer, and customers under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were consequentially set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174253