https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184751 Extended limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the alleged brand-name use and related clearances were already disclosed in invoices, RT-12 returns, classification declarations and departmental records. As the jurisdictional officers had examined the relevant documents and there was no concealment of a vital fact with intent to evade duty, mere misstatement was insufficient to justify invocation of the extended period. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and could not be sustained beyond the normal period. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:35:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184751 Extended limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the alleged brand-name use and related clearances were already disclosed in invoices, RT-12 returns, classification declarations and departmental records. As the jurisdictional officers had examined the relevant documents and there was no concealment of a vital fact with intent to evade duty, mere misstatement was insufficient to justify invocation of the extended period. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and could not be sustained beyond the normal period. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184751