https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269365 The Supreme Court applied the limitation rule under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and found no basis to invoke the extended period because the assessee had disclosed its activity to the Department, claimed exemption for hand-made wooden furniture, and the record showed no misstatement, concealment, or misrepresentation. On that factual footing, the belated show cause notice was beyond time, and the duty demand was time-barred. en-us Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269365 The Supreme Court applied the limitation rule under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and found no basis to invoke the extended period because the assessee had disclosed its activity to the Department, claimed exemption for hand-made wooden furniture, and the record showed no misstatement, concealment, or misrepresentation. On that factual footing, the belated show cause notice was beyond time, and the duty demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269365