https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3995 Extended limitation under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where departmental officers had already visited the factory and knew the material facts, yet the show-cause notice was issued much later without evidence of continuing investigation or proved suppression. As the demand of differential duty was therefore time-barred, it could not be sustained, and the penalty based on that disputed demand also failed. The document further notes that repacking became excisable only after insertion of Note 5 in Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, but that change did not justify invoking suppression on the facts recorded. en-us Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3995 Extended limitation under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where departmental officers had already visited the factory and knew the material facts, yet the show-cause notice was issued much later without evidence of continuing investigation or proved suppression. As the demand of differential duty was therefore time-barred, it could not be sustained, and the penalty based on that disputed demand also failed. The document further notes that repacking became excisable only after insertion of Note 5 in Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, but that change did not justify invoking suppression on the facts recorded. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3995