https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245983 Extended limitation could not be invoked for the brand-name based demand because the relevant controversy had already been decided in favour of assessees, the Revenue was aware of the facts, and no wilful suppression or mala fide intent was shown; the demand and related penalties were therefore barred by limitation. Allegations of clandestine removal could not be sustained on the existing record because the adjudication did not properly examine the documentary and electronic evidence, third-party material, residential recoveries, or objections under the evidence provisions; the demand was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245983 Extended limitation could not be invoked for the brand-name based demand because the relevant controversy had already been decided in favour of assessees, the Revenue was aware of the facts, and no wilful suppression or mala fide intent was shown; the demand and related penalties were therefore barred by limitation. Allegations of clandestine removal could not be sustained on the existing record because the adjudication did not properly examine the documentary and electronic evidence, third-party material, residential recoveries, or objections under the evidence provisions; the demand was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245983