https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248716 Limitation was rejected because, in cases involving suppression of facts and alleged clandestine removals, the relevant consideration is whether suppression or misdeclaration occurred, not the timing of the department's investigation. The demand was therefore not treated as time-barred. On clandestine removal, the seized diary, stock shortage, and recorded statements indicated suppression of clearances, but the record did not support reliable quantification of the full alleged unaccounted removals. Duty was accordingly confined to the amount attributable to the stock shortage actually established on inspection. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248716 Limitation was rejected because, in cases involving suppression of facts and alleged clandestine removals, the relevant consideration is whether suppression or misdeclaration occurred, not the timing of the department's investigation. The demand was therefore not treated as time-barred. On clandestine removal, the seized diary, stock shortage, and recorded statements indicated suppression of clearances, but the record did not support reliable quantification of the full alleged unaccounted removals. Duty was accordingly confined to the amount attributable to the stock shortage actually established on inspection. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248716