https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178302 The HC held that writ jurisdiction was not excluded merely because the statutory appeal had been dismissed as time-barred, and it could still examine the legality of the show-cause notice and adjudication order. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked without a clear allegation and finding of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. As neither the notice nor the adjudication established that requirement, the extended period was unjustified and the demand could not be sustained; the notice and order in original were set aside. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:15:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178302 The HC held that writ jurisdiction was not excluded merely because the statutory appeal had been dismissed as time-barred, and it could still examine the legality of the show-cause notice and adjudication order. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked without a clear allegation and finding of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. As neither the notice nor the adjudication established that requirement, the extended period was unjustified and the demand could not be sustained; the notice and order in original were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178302