https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241573 Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was discussed in the context of a declaration under Rule 173B that distinguished branded from own-branded or unbranded pipes and tubes. The court treated the declaration as false because the available records did not identify which customers received branded goods and which received other categories, leaving the relevant exemption facts undisclosed to the Revenue. It was noted that RG-1 entries, RT-12 returns, the Superintendent's letter and the assessee's reply did not supply the basic particulars needed to verify the claim. The absence of further investigation did not bar invocation of the extended period where the foundational disclosure itself was incomplete or false. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241573 Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was discussed in the context of a declaration under Rule 173B that distinguished branded from own-branded or unbranded pipes and tubes. The court treated the declaration as false because the available records did not identify which customers received branded goods and which received other categories, leaving the relevant exemption facts undisclosed to the Revenue. It was noted that RG-1 entries, RT-12 returns, the Superintendent's letter and the assessee's reply did not supply the basic particulars needed to verify the claim. The absence of further investigation did not bar invocation of the extended period where the foundational disclosure itself was incomplete or false. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241573