https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450498 A duty demand relating to transactions from October to December 2000 was held time-barred because the extended limitation period was invoked only after audit objections raised years later, and the record did not show suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The absence of cogent material supporting mala fide conduct meant the department could not justify extending limitation, especially where it had an opportunity to verify the transactions within the normal period. The proposed penalty was also dropped, reinforcing that the demand could not be sustained as within limitation. The finding was in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2024 09:07:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450498 A duty demand relating to transactions from October to December 2000 was held time-barred because the extended limitation period was invoked only after audit objections raised years later, and the record did not show suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The absence of cogent material supporting mala fide conduct meant the department could not justify extending limitation, especially where it had an opportunity to verify the transactions within the normal period. The proposed penalty was also dropped, reinforcing that the demand could not be sustained as within limitation. The finding was in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450498