https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91611 Publicity in newspapers and electronic media did not amount to disclosure of manufacture and clearances to the Central Excise Department. No declaration was filed with the excise officers, no classification or price list was submitted, the goods were not properly recorded in RG 1, and clearances were made without statutory documents and without payment of duty. On those facts, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression and no basis to depart from its earlier view that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was available. The extended period of limitation was upheld and the appeal was rejected. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:07:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91611 Publicity in newspapers and electronic media did not amount to disclosure of manufacture and clearances to the Central Excise Department. No declaration was filed with the excise officers, no classification or price list was submitted, the goods were not properly recorded in RG 1, and clearances were made without statutory documents and without payment of duty. On those facts, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression and no basis to depart from its earlier view that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was available. The extended period of limitation was upheld and the appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91611