https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354470 The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the limitation aspect in a case remanded for de novo adjudication. It found that the demand for the period April to June 2000 cannot be confirmed against the appellant due to the timing of the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal clarified that subsequent notices cannot allege suppression of facts when all relevant facts are known. As the appellant did not engage in fraudulent activities, they were not held liable for interest and penalty. The matter was remanded for quantification of the duty demand within the normal period, and the interest and penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354470 The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the limitation aspect in a case remanded for de novo adjudication. It found that the demand for the period April to June 2000 cannot be confirmed against the appellant due to the timing of the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal clarified that subsequent notices cannot allege suppression of facts when all relevant facts are known. As the appellant did not engage in fraudulent activities, they were not held liable for interest and penalty. The matter was remanded for quantification of the duty demand within the normal period, and the interest and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354470