https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31706 The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable because the dispute arose from changing interpretations and did not establish suppression or intent to evade duty. It also noted that the earlier order had been set aside by the Supreme Court and was not binding in the de novo proceedings. Some demands were found wholly time-barred and set aside, while the remaining matters were remanded for re-quantification within the normal period with consideration of cum-duty benefit and SSI exemption where applicable. en-us Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31706 The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable because the dispute arose from changing interpretations and did not establish suppression or intent to evade duty. It also noted that the earlier order had been set aside by the Supreme Court and was not binding in the de novo proceedings. Some demands were found wholly time-barred and set aside, while the remaining matters were remanded for re-quantification within the normal period with consideration of cum-duty benefit and SSI exemption where applicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31706