https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790799 Extended limitation under the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the department had prior knowledge of the addition of new products, shifting of premises and transfer of the unit, and no deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty was shown. Area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. remained available for an eligible unit that introduced new products, relocated within the notified area and was taken over as a going concern. Statements recorded under section 14 could not be used without complying with section 9D, making them inadmissible for adjudication. Penalties under rules 25 and 26 also failed because the substantive demand and the required confiscability findings were not sustained. en-us Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 10:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790799 Extended limitation under the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the department had prior knowledge of the addition of new products, shifting of premises and transfer of the unit, and no deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty was shown. Area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. remained available for an eligible unit that introduced new products, relocated within the notified area and was taken over as a going concern. Statements recorded under section 14 could not be used without complying with section 9D, making them inadmissible for adjudication. Penalties under rules 25 and 26 also failed because the substantive demand and the required confiscability findings were not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790799