https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98025 The extended demand period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked merely because a few clearances were made at prices higher than the approved price. Only three such instances occurred over about eight months, and the Department failed to show that the buyers formed a separate class or that the declared and approved price had ceased to represent the normal price. As the gate passes were filed with monthly returns, the record did not support suppression of vital facts. On these facts, the differential duty demand was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:16:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98025 The extended demand period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked merely because a few clearances were made at prices higher than the approved price. Only three such instances occurred over about eight months, and the Department failed to show that the buyers formed a separate class or that the declared and approved price had ceased to represent the normal price. As the gate passes were filed with monthly returns, the record did not support suppression of vital facts. On these facts, the differential duty demand was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98025