https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109000 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable where the department already knew the material facts forming the demand. The assessee showed that the buyer was the holding company and that the sales pattern had been disclosed in earlier departmental proceedings; prior notices had also referred to that relationship. On those facts, suppression of facts and intent to evade duty could not be sustained, so the demand and penalties based on extended limitation failed. The impugned order was set aside on limitation, and the other issues remained undecided. en-us Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:35:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109000 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable where the department already knew the material facts forming the demand. The assessee showed that the buyer was the holding company and that the sales pattern had been disclosed in earlier departmental proceedings; prior notices had also referred to that relationship. On those facts, suppression of facts and intent to evade duty could not be sustained, so the demand and penalties based on extended limitation failed. The impugned order was set aside on limitation, and the other issues remained undecided. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109000