https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121136 Where the department already knew the material facts and an earlier final adjudication on the same issue covered an overlapping period, suppression could not be alleged to invoke the extended period of limitation. The later demand, being contrary to the unchallenged prior order on identical facts, was held barred by limitation and unsustainable. The analysis also applied the principle of res judicata to prevent reopening the same dispute on the same core factual matrix. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:50:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121136 Where the department already knew the material facts and an earlier final adjudication on the same issue covered an overlapping period, suppression could not be alleged to invoke the extended period of limitation. The later demand, being contrary to the unchallenged prior order on identical facts, was held barred by limitation and unsustainable. The analysis also applied the principle of res judicata to prevent reopening the same dispute on the same core factual matrix. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121136