https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46524 The Tribunal had recorded that there was no suppression by the assessee, but it did not independently decide the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on merits. Because the extended-period limitation question required fresh adjudication, the Supreme Court held that the matter could not be finally determined without that consideration. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a merits-based decision on the applicability of the proviso. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:01:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46524 The Tribunal had recorded that there was no suppression by the assessee, but it did not independently decide the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on merits. Because the extended-period limitation question required fresh adjudication, the Supreme Court held that the matter could not be finally determined without that consideration. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a merits-based decision on the applicability of the proviso. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46524