https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325075 The appellant successfully argued against double recovery of excise duty for the same consignment, emphasizing that the department cannot demand duty twice for the cleared products. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that since the consignee had already paid the duty and interest, the appellant cannot be held liable again. Additionally, the extended period of limitation for issuing the show-cause notice beyond one year was deemed time-barred, as there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order with any consequential relief. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325075 The appellant successfully argued against double recovery of excise duty for the same consignment, emphasizing that the department cannot demand duty twice for the cleared products. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that since the consignee had already paid the duty and interest, the appellant cannot be held liable again. Additionally, the extended period of limitation for issuing the show-cause notice beyond one year was deemed time-barred, as there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order with any consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325075