https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31602 A demand issued on 21 May 1992 could not cover the earlier period from January 1986 to 20 May 1987 under the extended limitation period in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, because that portion fell outside five years from the notice date and was therefore time-barred. For the surviving period from 21 May 1987 to July 1987, the Tribunal's factual finding that there was insufficient evidence of use of soda ash in duty-unpaid detergent manufacture was treated as a finding of fact and was not interfered with. The demand accordingly failed for the barred period and could not be disturbed on merits for the remainder. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31602 A demand issued on 21 May 1992 could not cover the earlier period from January 1986 to 20 May 1987 under the extended limitation period in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, because that portion fell outside five years from the notice date and was therefore time-barred. For the surviving period from 21 May 1987 to July 1987, the Tribunal's factual finding that there was insufficient evidence of use of soda ash in duty-unpaid detergent manufacture was treated as a finding of fact and was not interfered with. The demand accordingly failed for the barred period and could not be disturbed on merits for the remainder. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31602