https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783174 The CESTAT set aside the impugned demand raised by invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It held that extended limitation requires proof of mens rea in the form of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere negligence, bona fide error or differing legal interpretation is insufficient. As the revenue failed to establish any deliberate intent to evade duty or active concealment by the assessee, the extended period was inapplicable and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:55:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783174 The CESTAT set aside the impugned demand raised by invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It held that extended limitation requires proof of mens rea in the form of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere negligence, bona fide error or differing legal interpretation is insufficient. As the revenue failed to establish any deliberate intent to evade duty or active concealment by the assessee, the extended period was inapplicable and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783174