https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265069 The appeal failed because the CESTAT had already held the demand to be time-barred, and that finding was not challenged in the present appeal. As the limitation conclusion in paragraph 9 of the impugned order remained unassailed, there was no basis to disturb it, and the appeal was dismissed on that ground. The operative point is that an unchallenged finding on limitation is sufficient to defeat the demand. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:03:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265069 The appeal failed because the CESTAT had already held the demand to be time-barred, and that finding was not challenged in the present appeal. As the limitation conclusion in paragraph 9 of the impugned order remained unassailed, there was no basis to disturb it, and the appeal was dismissed on that ground. The operative point is that an unchallenged finding on limitation is sufficient to defeat the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265069