https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42776 The court found that the show cause notice was defective as it did not allege suppression or misstatement, thus failing to meet the requirements of Section 11A proviso. Consequently, the court held that the notice did not justify the extended limitation period. Regarding the revocation of approval and demand for differential duty, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, concluding that the Department failed to prove transactions were not on a principal-to-principal basis. The Writ Petition was allowed, the Assistant Collector's order was quashed, and the petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/-. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:09:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42776 The court found that the show cause notice was defective as it did not allege suppression or misstatement, thus failing to meet the requirements of Section 11A proviso. Consequently, the court held that the notice did not justify the extended limitation period. Regarding the revocation of approval and demand for differential duty, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, concluding that the Department failed to prove transactions were not on a principal-to-principal basis. The Writ Petition was allowed, the Assistant Collector's order was quashed, and the petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42776