https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193262 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. It held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The appellant's disclosure of relevant facts within the normal period and the Department's prior knowledge led to the proceedings being deemed time-barred. The importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the lack of intentional suppression of facts were emphasized in the decision. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2017 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193262 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. It held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The appellant's disclosure of relevant facts within the normal period and the Department's prior knowledge led to the proceedings being deemed time-barred. The importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the lack of intentional suppression of facts were emphasized in the decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193262