https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88525 Duty demand for the period 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 was found barred by limitation because the exemption claim and concessional assessment were disclosed in the RT 12 returns and assessed by departmental officers. Those returns put the relevant facts before the department in 1986 itself, so the department was treated as having knowledge of the claim at the time of assessment. In the absence of suppression of facts, the extended limitation period could not be invoked against the assessee, and the demand was held time-barred. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88525 Duty demand for the period 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 was found barred by limitation because the exemption claim and concessional assessment were disclosed in the RT 12 returns and assessed by departmental officers. Those returns put the relevant facts before the department in 1986 itself, so the department was treated as having knowledge of the claim at the time of assessment. In the absence of suppression of facts, the extended limitation period could not be invoked against the assessee, and the demand was held time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88525