https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166733 A differential duty demand could not be sustained where the show cause notice invoked Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 without any specific allegation of suppression, fraud, or misstatement. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts from the outset, and the Department already had the production and excise-control dates on record. On that material, the duty basis and refund had been determined, so a later inference of concealment could not revive time-barred recovery. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:41:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166733 A differential duty demand could not be sustained where the show cause notice invoked Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 without any specific allegation of suppression, fraud, or misstatement. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts from the outset, and the Department already had the production and excise-control dates on record. On that material, the duty basis and refund had been determined, so a later inference of concealment could not revive time-barred recovery. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166733