https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265859 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the demand for duty and interest was time-barred as it should have been issued within one year of the department's knowledge, established to be on 6.8.2004. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of intent to evade duty payment, based on the factual assessment that the demand was solely related to incorrect valuation of goods without contravention of rules. This case underscores the importance of timely issuance of demands in indirect tax matters and the necessity of considering all relevant communications and reports in determining the limitation period for show cause notices. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:49:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265859 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the demand for duty and interest was time-barred as it should have been issued within one year of the department's knowledge, established to be on 6.8.2004. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of intent to evade duty payment, based on the factual assessment that the demand was solely related to incorrect valuation of goods without contravention of rules. This case underscores the importance of timely issuance of demands in indirect tax matters and the necessity of considering all relevant communications and reports in determining the limitation period for show cause notices. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265859