https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88056 Non-disclosure of loading charges incurred within the factory was treated as suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available and the demand beyond six months was not time-barred. The objection that the show cause notice and adjudication were invalid for want of jurisdiction was rejected because the competence of the authority had to be tested under the law in force at the relevant time, and the amendment relied on had not yet come into force. The notice and adjudication were therefore upheld, and the Revenue succeeded. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:19:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88056 Non-disclosure of loading charges incurred within the factory was treated as suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available and the demand beyond six months was not time-barred. The objection that the show cause notice and adjudication were invalid for want of jurisdiction was rejected because the competence of the authority had to be tested under the law in force at the relevant time, and the amendment relied on had not yet come into force. The notice and adjudication were therefore upheld, and the Revenue succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88056