https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98359 A licensed, duty-paying assessee that regularly filed classification and price lists was held not to have suppressed material facts. Because an earlier notice on substantially similar allegations had already been issued, and prior proceedings on the brand-name issue had been withdrawn after a finding favourable to the assessee, the later notice did not justify use of the extended period of limitation. The demand therefore failed on limitation, as the Tribunal found no sufficient basis for alleging suppression to sustain extended limitation. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98359 A licensed, duty-paying assessee that regularly filed classification and price lists was held not to have suppressed material facts. Because an earlier notice on substantially similar allegations had already been issued, and prior proceedings on the brand-name issue had been withdrawn after a finding favourable to the assessee, the later notice did not justify use of the extended period of limitation. The demand therefore failed on limitation, as the Tribunal found no sufficient basis for alleging suppression to sustain extended limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98359