https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73614 The demand of central excise duty was held to be time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal limitation period without proof of deliberate suppression of facts. The department sought to invoke the extended period on the allegation that the assessee knew of an error in the base clearance calculation and failed to disclose it, but no material substantiated such knowledge or suppression. In the absence of affirmative evidence of equivalent conduct, the extended period could not be applied merely on assertion, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Mon, 11 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:14:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73614 The demand of central excise duty was held to be time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal limitation period without proof of deliberate suppression of facts. The department sought to invoke the extended period on the allegation that the assessee knew of an error in the base clearance calculation and failed to disclose it, but no material substantiated such knowledge or suppression. In the absence of affirmative evidence of equivalent conduct, the extended period could not be applied merely on assertion, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73614