Failure to declare amount in return alone does not imply wilful suppression

M R Beltings Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh) The CESTAT, Chandigarh in M/s. M R Beltings v. Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak [ Excise Appeal No. 57958 of 2013 dated August 25, 2023] set aside the demand order on the ground that the entire demand is barred by limitation since, the department was not able to bring anything on record to show that the assessee has suppressed the material fact in order to evade the payment of duty. Facts: M/s. M R Beltings (“the Appellant”) is engaged in the manufacturing of conveyor belt and transmission belt in terms of the orders r...