https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166201 Continued clearances after an exemption notification was amended, without full disclosure of the common manufacturer and multiple factories, were treated as suppression of material facts. On that basis, the demand was not confined to six months and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held rightly invoked. The plea of bona fide ignorance of the amended notification was rejected, and the duty demand was sustained in full. The penalty was found excessive compared with the duty liability and was reduced to match the duty amount, reflecting proportionality despite the finding of suppression. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166201 Continued clearances after an exemption notification was amended, without full disclosure of the common manufacturer and multiple factories, were treated as suppression of material facts. On that basis, the demand was not confined to six months and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held rightly invoked. The plea of bona fide ignorance of the amended notification was rejected, and the duty demand was sustained in full. The penalty was found excessive compared with the duty liability and was reduced to match the duty amount, reflecting proportionality despite the finding of suppression. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166201