https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152028 A mere change in the legal status of an undertaking, when its manufacturing activity remains unchanged and the change is publicly notified in the Official Gazette, does not by itself amount to suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. On those facts, the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not established, so the extended limitation period was not available and the demand was barred by limitation. en-us Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:01:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152028 A mere change in the legal status of an undertaking, when its manufacturing activity remains unchanged and the change is publicly notified in the Official Gazette, does not by itself amount to suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. On those facts, the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not established, so the extended limitation period was not available and the demand was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152028