https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90788 Suppression of facts could not be inferred where the assessee had disclosed the material facts to the jurisdictional authority and acted under permission granted after a High Court order, so invocation of the extended period and insistence on pre-deposit were not justified. The dispute over Modvat credit on cut tobacco also required fresh examination because the precedent relied on was based on a materially different notification; the set-off claim and Modvat claim had to be assessed on the correct legal footing. Relief from pre-deposit was therefore granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration after hearing. en-us Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:10:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90788 Suppression of facts could not be inferred where the assessee had disclosed the material facts to the jurisdictional authority and acted under permission granted after a High Court order, so invocation of the extended period and insistence on pre-deposit were not justified. The dispute over Modvat credit on cut tobacco also required fresh examination because the precedent relied on was based on a materially different notification; the set-off claim and Modvat claim had to be assessed on the correct legal footing. Relief from pre-deposit was therefore granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration after hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90788