https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791160 The extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was unavailable because the Department did not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The dispute over classification and non-declaration of clearances had been contemporaneously raised after audit, and the assessee consistently maintained a bona fide classification view; mere omission from the ER-1 return was insufficient to prove the necessary intent. As a result, the demand was barred by limitation and was set aside, and the connected interest and penalty demands also could not survive. en-us Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2026 07:07:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791160 The extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was unavailable because the Department did not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The dispute over classification and non-declaration of clearances had been contemporaneously raised after audit, and the assessee consistently maintained a bona fide classification view; mere omission from the ER-1 return was insufficient to prove the necessary intent. As a result, the demand was barred by limitation and was set aside, and the connected interest and penalty demands also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791160