https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87719 Non-disclosure of a material fact affecting exemption eligibility was treated as suppression, allowing invocation of the extended limitation period where the assessee continued to claim exemption after amendment and had not disclosed DGTD registration; ignorance of the notification was rejected because publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient notice. The existence of a parallel notice for the normal period did not prevent recourse to the longer period once suppression was established, so the duty demand was upheld as not time-barred. The penalty under the excise rules was found excessive on the facts and was reduced, granting only partial relief. en-us Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:03:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87719 Non-disclosure of a material fact affecting exemption eligibility was treated as suppression, allowing invocation of the extended limitation period where the assessee continued to claim exemption after amendment and had not disclosed DGTD registration; ignorance of the notification was rejected because publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient notice. The existence of a parallel notice for the normal period did not prevent recourse to the longer period once suppression was established, so the duty demand was upheld as not time-barred. The penalty under the excise rules was found excessive on the facts and was reduced, granting only partial relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87719