https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376744 The judgment analyzed the confirmation of demand based on a longer limitation period due to alleged suppression to evade duty payment. The appellant's consistent stance, supported by legal precedents, demonstrated no malicious intent in clearing goods without duty payment in November 2004. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and highlighting the significance of the appellant's genuine belief and actions regarding duty payment obligations. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376744 The judgment analyzed the confirmation of demand based on a longer limitation period due to alleged suppression to evade duty payment. The appellant's consistent stance, supported by legal precedents, demonstrated no malicious intent in clearing goods without duty payment in November 2004. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and highlighting the significance of the appellant's genuine belief and actions regarding duty payment obligations. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376744