https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84820 The dispute concerned whether a customs/excise demand could be sustained beyond the normal limitation period by invoking the extended period under Section 11A on the allegation of suppression of facts relating to the manufacture of glass rods and use of an exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that the manufacture process was well known in the trade and that the Department could not establish suppression or misstatement of material facts on the record. As a result, the extended limitation period was held unavailable, the demand was treated as time-barred, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:12:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84820 The dispute concerned whether a customs/excise demand could be sustained beyond the normal limitation period by invoking the extended period under Section 11A on the allegation of suppression of facts relating to the manufacture of glass rods and use of an exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that the manufacture process was well known in the trade and that the Department could not establish suppression or misstatement of material facts on the record. As a result, the extended limitation period was held unavailable, the demand was treated as time-barred, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84820