https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3059 Prior intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority about repacking bulk goods into smaller packs and selling them under the assessee's brand name was sufficient to put the department on notice to examine whether the activity amounted to manufacture. On those facts, suppression of facts was not established, and the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The communication to the proper officer could not be disregarded on a hyper-technical reading of Rule 43 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, especially in light of the delegation scheme under Rule 5. The show cause notice was therefore time-barred. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3059 Prior intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority about repacking bulk goods into smaller packs and selling them under the assessee's brand name was sufficient to put the department on notice to examine whether the activity amounted to manufacture. On those facts, suppression of facts was not established, and the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The communication to the proper officer could not be disregarded on a hyper-technical reading of Rule 43 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, especially in light of the delegation scheme under Rule 5. The show cause notice was therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3059