https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234316 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the assessee had filed ER-2 returns, disclosed manufacture, export and DTA clearances, identified the notification availed, and furnished invoices. Those disclosures gave the department sufficient material to verify the clearances and concession claimed, so suppression or misstatement was not established. The Tribunal's finding of no suppression or incomplete disclosure rested on documentary evidence and was not shown to be perverse, with the result that the demand was time-barred. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:01:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234316 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the assessee had filed ER-2 returns, disclosed manufacture, export and DTA clearances, identified the notification availed, and furnished invoices. Those disclosures gave the department sufficient material to verify the clearances and concession claimed, so suppression or misstatement was not established. The Tribunal's finding of no suppression or incomplete disclosure rested on documentary evidence and was not shown to be perverse, with the result that the demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234316