https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81765 Retrospective amendment to the valuation provision did not require pending show-cause notices to be reissued, because the legal basis for the duty demand continued after the amendment. The demand was not barred by limitation where excess duty was recovered through invoices and bills but not disclosed in returns and gate passes, as that constituted suppression of facts and justified use of the extended period. Reliance on a press note did not vitiate the adjudication, since the order was founded on the retrospective statutory amendment and an independent assessment of the facts. Differential duty was therefore upheld, and the cross-objections failed. en-us Thu, 16 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:04:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81765 Retrospective amendment to the valuation provision did not require pending show-cause notices to be reissued, because the legal basis for the duty demand continued after the amendment. The demand was not barred by limitation where excess duty was recovered through invoices and bills but not disclosed in returns and gate passes, as that constituted suppression of facts and justified use of the extended period. Reliance on a press note did not vitiate the adjudication, since the order was founded on the retrospective statutory amendment and an independent assessment of the facts. Differential duty was therefore upheld, and the cross-objections failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81765