https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788154 Demand under Rule 3(5A) for 17.03.2012-27.09.2013 was held time barred because extended limitation was not justified by any evidence of suppression with intent; returns and audit-originated objections alone did not invoke extended limitation, and appellant's bona fide belief about non liability was noted. Separately, the substantive duty demand was unsustainable on merits because no statutory recovery mechanism existed for that period, so consequential interest and penalty also lacked legal basis. The impugned demand, interest and penalty were set aside on both limitation and merits. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:20:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788154 Demand under Rule 3(5A) for 17.03.2012-27.09.2013 was held time barred because extended limitation was not justified by any evidence of suppression with intent; returns and audit-originated objections alone did not invoke extended limitation, and appellant's bona fide belief about non liability was noted. Separately, the substantive duty demand was unsustainable on merits because no statutory recovery mechanism existed for that period, so consequential interest and penalty also lacked legal basis. The impugned demand, interest and penalty were set aside on both limitation and merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788154