https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3905 Where the department was informed of the factory's indefinite closure and no suppression of facts was shown, the extended demand machinery under section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked. The Tribunal also treated a cryptic, non-speaking order that ignored the assessee's closure intimation, replies, electricity bills and other material as unsustainable, because decisions with civil consequences must be reasoned and evidence-based. On the facts recorded, permanent closure and absence of production undermined the duty demand, and the connected levy of interest and penalty also could not survive. The demand order was therefore annulled. en-us Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3905 Where the department was informed of the factory's indefinite closure and no suppression of facts was shown, the extended demand machinery under section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked. The Tribunal also treated a cryptic, non-speaking order that ignored the assessee's closure intimation, replies, electricity bills and other material as unsustainable, because decisions with civil consequences must be reasoned and evidence-based. On the facts recorded, permanent closure and absence of production undermined the duty demand, and the connected levy of interest and penalty also could not survive. The demand order was therefore annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3905