https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359206 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision in a case involving the interpretation of the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression or contravention by the assessee, emphasizing the need to establish intentional acts to evade duty payment to warrant the extended period of limitation. The judgment clarified that mere omission without intent does not amount to suppression, settling the legal question and upholding the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359206 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision in a case involving the interpretation of the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression or contravention by the assessee, emphasizing the need to establish intentional acts to evade duty payment to warrant the extended period of limitation. The judgment clarified that mere omission without intent does not amount to suppression, settling the legal question and upholding the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359206