https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167481 The extended five-year limitation under central excise law was not available because the show cause notice lacked specific allegations of suppression or misstatement, and the Revenue did not establish that the assessee had failed to make a full and true declaration in the price-list. The record also did not support a finding of undeclared invoices or clandestine removal, so Rule 9 was inapplicable. As a result, the demand could be sustained only for the normal six-month period preceding the notice, and the time-barred portion of the demand was excluded. en-us Fri, 31 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:12:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167481 The extended five-year limitation under central excise law was not available because the show cause notice lacked specific allegations of suppression or misstatement, and the Revenue did not establish that the assessee had failed to make a full and true declaration in the price-list. The record also did not support a finding of undeclared invoices or clandestine removal, so Rule 9 was inapplicable. As a result, the demand could be sustained only for the normal six-month period preceding the notice, and the time-barred portion of the demand was excluded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167481