https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104475 Duty demand was held time barred under Section 11A because the extended period could not be invoked without suppression of facts. The classification lists, correspondence and audit material showed that body building on fire fighting vehicles had been disclosed to the department from the beginning, and that the department knew the appellants were availing exemption and not paying duty on equipment used in manufacture. In the absence of suppression, the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable, so the demand issued beyond the normal six-month period failed on limitation without examination of the merits. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:24:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104475 Duty demand was held time barred under Section 11A because the extended period could not be invoked without suppression of facts. The classification lists, correspondence and audit material showed that body building on fire fighting vehicles had been disclosed to the department from the beginning, and that the department knew the appellants were availing exemption and not paying duty on equipment used in manufacture. In the absence of suppression, the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable, so the demand issued beyond the normal six-month period failed on limitation without examination of the merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104475