https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751778 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty under Rule 96ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal found the demand for March 2000 barred by limitation, as the appellant had not suppressed information and disclosed the non-payment in their RT-12 return. The invocation of Section 11A was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, distinguishing the case from a cited Supreme Court precedent. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:34:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751778 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty under Rule 96ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal found the demand for March 2000 barred by limitation, as the appellant had not suppressed information and disclosed the non-payment in their RT-12 return. The invocation of Section 11A was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, distinguishing the case from a cited Supreme Court precedent. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751778