https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87454 Departmental awareness of the assessee's branded tins and logo, evidenced by correspondence and examination of the labels, defeated the allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked and the demand was held time-barred. Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also failed because the sole selling agent's deliberate knowledge or belief that the goods were liable to confiscation was not established. The appeals were allowed and consequential relief followed to the extent permissible. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:36:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87454 Departmental awareness of the assessee's branded tins and logo, evidenced by correspondence and examination of the labels, defeated the allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked and the demand was held time-barred. Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also failed because the sole selling agent's deliberate knowledge or belief that the goods were liable to confiscation was not established. The appeals were allowed and consequential relief followed to the extent permissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87454