https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339865 In the absence of evidence of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred. Payment of differential duty before a show cause notice did not, by itself, remove liability to interest, but no separate relief on interest or penalty survived once the notice itself failed on limitation and lack of foundational grounds. The revenue appeal was rejected, leaving the assessee's position undisturbed. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339865 In the absence of evidence of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred. Payment of differential duty before a show cause notice did not, by itself, remove liability to interest, but no separate relief on interest or penalty survived once the notice itself failed on limitation and lack of foundational grounds. The revenue appeal was rejected, leaving the assessee's position undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339865