https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207637 Removal of goods under the export policy procedure, with permission of the Assistant Commissioner and production of rewarehousing certificates, did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period. Although the department alleged misdeclaration that the raw materials were defective, the record showed that it was aware of the movement and return of the goods, so there was no suppression of facts sufficient to sustain a time-bar exception. The demand was therefore held barred by limitation, and the Revenue could not invoke the extended period. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207637 Removal of goods under the export policy procedure, with permission of the Assistant Commissioner and production of rewarehousing certificates, did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period. Although the department alleged misdeclaration that the raw materials were defective, the record showed that it was aware of the movement and return of the goods, so there was no suppression of facts sufficient to sustain a time-bar exception. The demand was therefore held barred by limitation, and the Revenue could not invoke the extended period. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207637