https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81926 Mere omission to include inputs in a Rule 57G declaration was treated as a failure of disclosure, not suppression of facts, because the non-inclusion was apparent on the face of the declaration and did not prevent the department from knowing the material facts in time. On that basis, irregular availment of Modvat credit alone was held insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period under the proviso to Rule 57-1; the longer period applies only where the statutory ingredients of suppression or similar conditions are satisfied. The reference application was rejected because the dispute did not raise a referable question of law on extended limitation. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:28:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81926 Mere omission to include inputs in a Rule 57G declaration was treated as a failure of disclosure, not suppression of facts, because the non-inclusion was apparent on the face of the declaration and did not prevent the department from knowing the material facts in time. On that basis, irregular availment of Modvat credit alone was held insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period under the proviso to Rule 57-1; the longer period applies only where the statutory ingredients of suppression or similar conditions are satisfied. The reference application was rejected because the dispute did not raise a referable question of law on extended limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81926