https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124114 Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the Revenue did not prove suppression of facts within the assessee's knowledge with intent to evade duty. The assessee relied on contemporaneous documents, including Village Administrative Officer certificates, Tea Board registration certificates and growers' self-declarations, which supported a bona fide belief that the suppliers were small tea growers. Agricultural Income Tax returns suggesting larger land holdings were not shown to have been known to the assessee. The finding of suppression was set aside, and the duty demand and penalties failed on limitation. en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124114 Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the Revenue did not prove suppression of facts within the assessee's knowledge with intent to evade duty. The assessee relied on contemporaneous documents, including Village Administrative Officer certificates, Tea Board registration certificates and growers' self-declarations, which supported a bona fide belief that the suppliers were small tea growers. Agricultural Income Tax returns suggesting larger land holdings were not shown to have been known to the assessee. The finding of suppression was set aside, and the duty demand and penalties failed on limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124114