https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246830 Regular filing of RT-12 returns and submission of invoices that disclosed the deductions claimed under Section 4 defeated any allegation of suppression of facts. Because the department had access to those records and raised no timely objection, intent to evade duty could not be presumed. The delayed demand for differential central excise duty for 1995-96 was therefore barred by limitation and was not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:15:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246830 Regular filing of RT-12 returns and submission of invoices that disclosed the deductions claimed under Section 4 defeated any allegation of suppression of facts. Because the department had access to those records and raised no timely objection, intent to evade duty could not be presumed. The delayed demand for differential central excise duty for 1995-96 was therefore barred by limitation and was not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246830