https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349176 The CESTAT upheld the duty demand while ruling against the department on all issues, finding no suppression or willful misstatement by the assessee. The Tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation did not apply due to the disclosure of all relevant information. It also held that penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were not warranted based on limitations. The Tribunal set aside the Order in Original, allowing the company's appeal due to the absence of fraudulent conduct or suppression of facts by the assessee. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349176 The CESTAT upheld the duty demand while ruling against the department on all issues, finding no suppression or willful misstatement by the assessee. The Tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation did not apply due to the disclosure of all relevant information. It also held that penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were not warranted based on limitations. The Tribunal set aside the Order in Original, allowing the company's appeal due to the absence of fraudulent conduct or suppression of facts by the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349176