https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343940 The extended period for central excise demand could not be invoked where the department alleged suppression only because dyeing of grey yarn was not shown in monthly ER-1 returns. The record showed that the assessee had already informed the Revenue about the job work and dyeing activity through written letters, and the original authority noted that this information was available with the department. On those facts, suppression of facts was not established, so the basis for extended limitation under Section 11A failed. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the confirmation of duty and penalty was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jun 2017 07:13:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343940 The extended period for central excise demand could not be invoked where the department alleged suppression only because dyeing of grey yarn was not shown in monthly ER-1 returns. The record showed that the assessee had already informed the Revenue about the job work and dyeing activity through written letters, and the original authority noted that this information was available with the department. On those facts, suppression of facts was not established, so the basis for extended limitation under Section 11A failed. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the confirmation of duty and penalty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343940