https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444990 The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that a partnership firm and proprietorship firm cannot be considered related parties under Section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944, even when the proprietor is a partner in the partnership firm. The demand raised in 2013 for period 2002-08 was time-barred as it exceeded normal limitation period. Since the appellant regularly informed the department about firm constitution changes, there was no suppression of facts to invoke extended limitation period. The tribunal found no undervaluation as parties were not related, and dismissed the demand along with penalties as time-barred. Appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Oct 2023 08:32:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444990 The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that a partnership firm and proprietorship firm cannot be considered related parties under Section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944, even when the proprietor is a partner in the partnership firm. The demand raised in 2013 for period 2002-08 was time-barred as it exceeded normal limitation period. Since the appellant regularly informed the department about firm constitution changes, there was no suppression of facts to invoke extended limitation period. The tribunal found no undervaluation as parties were not related, and dismissed the demand along with penalties as time-barred. Appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444990