https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117326 Mere non-reporting of a fire accident in a factory did not by itself establish suppression of facts with intent to evade central excise duty. The record showed that part of the damaged goods had already been cleared on payment of duty, some goods were job-work goods for which duty liability was not on the assessee, and duty on the remaining item had already been paid. As no remission was claimed and no duty advantage could have been gained by reporting the accident, the precondition for invoking the extended limitation period under the first proviso to Section 11A(1) was not met. The demand was therefore time-barred and the connected penalty was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:47:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117326 Mere non-reporting of a fire accident in a factory did not by itself establish suppression of facts with intent to evade central excise duty. The record showed that part of the damaged goods had already been cleared on payment of duty, some goods were job-work goods for which duty liability was not on the assessee, and duty on the remaining item had already been paid. As no remission was claimed and no duty advantage could have been gained by reporting the accident, the precondition for invoking the extended limitation period under the first proviso to Section 11A(1) was not met. The demand was therefore time-barred and the connected penalty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117326