https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3031 Embossed goods cleared for particular customers were treated as branded goods on the basis of accepted statutory records and approved declarations, making the branding issue a question of fact. Suppression of facts was not established because the relevant information was already within the department's knowledge through returns and earlier declarations, so reopening the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation was not justified. As the challenge depended on factual appreciation and no legal perversity was shown, no substantial question of law arose for interference in second appeal. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3031 Embossed goods cleared for particular customers were treated as branded goods on the basis of accepted statutory records and approved declarations, making the branding issue a question of fact. Suppression of facts was not established because the relevant information was already within the department's knowledge through returns and earlier declarations, so reopening the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation was not justified. As the challenge depended on factual appreciation and no legal perversity was shown, no substantial question of law arose for interference in second appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3031