https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83736 Non-disclosure of the source of finance did not amount to suppression of facts where the units had otherwise disclosed their constitution, partners, directors, product details, customers, classification lists, gate passes and RT-12 returns, and the Department had approved the relevant formalities. As no provision required disclosure of financing sources and the Department could have asked for further particulars, the extended limitation period could not be invoked on the basis alleged. The demand raised beyond six months was therefore not legally sustainable, and the connected penalty also could not survive. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:17:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83736 Non-disclosure of the source of finance did not amount to suppression of facts where the units had otherwise disclosed their constitution, partners, directors, product details, customers, classification lists, gate passes and RT-12 returns, and the Department had approved the relevant formalities. As no provision required disclosure of financing sources and the Department could have asked for further particulars, the extended limitation period could not be invoked on the basis alleged. The demand raised beyond six months was therefore not legally sustainable, and the connected penalty also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83736