https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54769 Central excise duty demand for the disputed period was held time-barred because the Department already knew the relevant facts from earlier visits, panchnamas, seizures and recorded statements, yet issued the show cause notice after the normal limitation period; on those facts, the extended period was not available. Penalty also failed because the order did not identify any specific contravention under the relevant penal rule, and a penalty cannot stand without a clear and proven breach. The impugned order was therefore set aside, with the demand and penalty both failing on limitation and defective penal foundation. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54769 Central excise duty demand for the disputed period was held time-barred because the Department already knew the relevant facts from earlier visits, panchnamas, seizures and recorded statements, yet issued the show cause notice after the normal limitation period; on those facts, the extended period was not available. Penalty also failed because the order did not identify any specific contravention under the relevant penal rule, and a penalty cannot stand without a clear and proven breach. The impugned order was therefore set aside, with the demand and penalty both failing on limitation and defective penal foundation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54769