https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90633 Separate invoices for CPUs, peripherals and software were treated as a disclosed clearance practice, and the record showed that the department had been informed of this arrangement in 1983. Because the relevant facts were not suppressed and the department was on notice of the manner of clearance, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the assessee's limitation objection succeeded. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:42:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90633 Separate invoices for CPUs, peripherals and software were treated as a disclosed clearance practice, and the record showed that the department had been informed of this arrangement in 1983. Because the relevant facts were not suppressed and the department was on notice of the manner of clearance, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the assessee's limitation objection succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90633