https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211917 Where the department had itself insisted on valuation under Section 4A and later shifted to Section 4, non-disclosure of material relevant only to the later method could not amount to suppression of facts. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable, and the duty demand based on that allegation could not survive. As the penalty rested on the same suppressed-facts allegation, it was also not sustainable. The CESTAT thus treated the inconsistent departmental valuation stand as fatal to the invocation of extended limitation and penalty. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211917 Where the department had itself insisted on valuation under Section 4A and later shifted to Section 4, non-disclosure of material relevant only to the later method could not amount to suppression of facts. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable, and the duty demand based on that allegation could not survive. As the penalty rested on the same suppressed-facts allegation, it was also not sustainable. The CESTAT thus treated the inconsistent departmental valuation stand as fatal to the invocation of extended limitation and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211917