https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175928 A later show cause notice based on the same or substantially similar facts cannot rely on suppression where the department already knew the underlying facts, so an extended-period demand on that basis fails. By contrast, retrospective amendment of excise law permits a short-levy demand even after approval of classification or price lists, and the absence of review under Section 35E does not bar action under Section 11A. On the facts, undervaluation and suppression were supported by seized costing sheets, parallel bills, and the sale pattern, so the demand, valuation adjustment, and penalty were sustained; cum-duty deduction was rejected because duty was shown as separately borne. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 18:02:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175928 A later show cause notice based on the same or substantially similar facts cannot rely on suppression where the department already knew the underlying facts, so an extended-period demand on that basis fails. By contrast, retrospective amendment of excise law permits a short-levy demand even after approval of classification or price lists, and the absence of review under Section 35E does not bar action under Section 11A. On the facts, undervaluation and suppression were supported by seized costing sheets, parallel bills, and the sale pattern, so the demand, valuation adjustment, and penalty were sustained; cum-duty deduction was rejected because duty was shown as separately borne. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175928