https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34147 The Tribunal upheld the view that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of suppression of facts or intentional misstatement to evade duty payment, despite the contravention of Notification No.1/93-CE. The appellant's argument for extending the limitation period based on previous short payments was rejected. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or misstatement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no legal error or substantial question of law was identified. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34147 The Tribunal upheld the view that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of suppression of facts or intentional misstatement to evade duty payment, despite the contravention of Notification No.1/93-CE. The appellant's argument for extending the limitation period based on previous short payments was rejected. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or misstatement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no legal error or substantial question of law was identified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34147