https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3232 The Court emphasized that the extended period for demanding duty can only be justified if there is proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade duty payment. In this case, as the proviso to section 11A was not invoked in the show cause notice, the extension of the time period was deemed invalid. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, highlighting the necessity of meeting specific criteria to warrant an extended period for duty demand. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of grounds for invoking the extended period. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3232 The Court emphasized that the extended period for demanding duty can only be justified if there is proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade duty payment. In this case, as the proviso to section 11A was not invoked in the show cause notice, the extension of the time period was deemed invalid. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, highlighting the necessity of meeting specific criteria to warrant an extended period for duty demand. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of grounds for invoking the extended period. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3232