https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76074 The court held that the non-declaration of a brand name, which belonged to another company, constituted suppression of facts. As a result, the extended period of limitation applied, contrary to the decision of CESTAT. The court found in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the assessee's use of the brand name without disclosure amounted to suppression. The original order was restored, and the appeal was allowed, with all questions answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76074 The court held that the non-declaration of a brand name, which belonged to another company, constituted suppression of facts. As a result, the extended period of limitation applied, contrary to the decision of CESTAT. The court found in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the assessee's use of the brand name without disclosure amounted to suppression. The original order was restored, and the appeal was allowed, with all questions answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76074