https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76235 Written disclosure of proposed contract manufacture and the brand name was sufficient to negate suppression, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Revenue's allegation of deliberate concealment failed because the assessee had notified the jurisdictional authority, and any doubt should have been clarified at that stage. The demand also lacked support where the duty position was revenue-neutral: exclusion of the branded goods from exemption computation would have left the assessee entitled to greater concessional clearances on its own products. On that basis, the duty demand, penalty and interest were held unsustainable and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76235 Written disclosure of proposed contract manufacture and the brand name was sufficient to negate suppression, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Revenue's allegation of deliberate concealment failed because the assessee had notified the jurisdictional authority, and any doubt should have been clarified at that stage. The demand also lacked support where the duty position was revenue-neutral: exclusion of the branded goods from exemption computation would have left the assessee entitled to greater concessional clearances on its own products. On that basis, the duty demand, penalty and interest were held unsustainable and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76235