https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98845 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the Department had already been informed of the brand name through classification lists, gate passes, sale invoices and RT-12 returns. On those facts, the mere failure to separately intimate use of the same brand name for another pump did not amount to suppression of facts. The duty demand was therefore time-barred and could not be sustained on the basis of alleged suppression. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:27:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98845 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the Department had already been informed of the brand name through classification lists, gate passes, sale invoices and RT-12 returns. On those facts, the mere failure to separately intimate use of the same brand name for another pump did not amount to suppression of facts. The duty demand was therefore time-barred and could not be sustained on the basis of alleged suppression. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98845