https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114181 Disclosure of the sourcing agreement to the department was sufficient to put it on notice of the basis of the transactions, and the revenue failed to show any undisclosed direct or indirect consideration outside that agreement. On those facts, the allegation that a separate full settlement had not been furnished did not establish suppression of material facts. The extended period of limitation under central excise law was therefore not available, and the differential duty demand was barred by limitation in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 18:53:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114181 Disclosure of the sourcing agreement to the department was sufficient to put it on notice of the basis of the transactions, and the revenue failed to show any undisclosed direct or indirect consideration outside that agreement. On those facts, the allegation that a separate full settlement had not been furnished did not establish suppression of material facts. The extended period of limitation under central excise law was therefore not available, and the differential duty demand was barred by limitation in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114181