https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119498 Non-disclosure of manufacture of branded video cassettes in a declaration filed under Notification No. 13/92-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as not amounting to suppression of facts or mis-statement for the purpose of limitation. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions holding that failure to disclose the brand name did not justify invocation of the extended period, and noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's appeal in one such matter. On that basis, the lower appellate authority's finding that the demand was time-barred was upheld, and the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:19:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119498 Non-disclosure of manufacture of branded video cassettes in a declaration filed under Notification No. 13/92-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as not amounting to suppression of facts or mis-statement for the purpose of limitation. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions holding that failure to disclose the brand name did not justify invocation of the extended period, and noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's appeal in one such matter. On that basis, the lower appellate authority's finding that the demand was time-barred was upheld, and the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119498