https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370012 Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked against a 100% EOU because the clearances were already disclosed through CT-3 permissions, ER-2 returns and departmental audit. The demand was therefore based on facts within the department's knowledge, and the Revenue failed to establish suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. Execution of a B-17 Bond did not, by itself, dispense with the statutory preconditions for the longer period. Bona fide belief on exemption and prior judicial interpretation further supported the conclusion that the demand was time-barred. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Nov 2018 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370012 Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked against a 100% EOU because the clearances were already disclosed through CT-3 permissions, ER-2 returns and departmental audit. The demand was therefore based on facts within the department's knowledge, and the Revenue failed to establish suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. Execution of a B-17 Bond did not, by itself, dispense with the statutory preconditions for the longer period. Bona fide belief on exemption and prior judicial interpretation further supported the conclusion that the demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370012