https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360779 Where the goods and manufacturing process were disclosed in periodic returns and the department conducted audits, absence of suppression or concealment meant the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked, and the demand for that period failed. The document also states that refunds already sanctioned and not challenged had attained finality, so they could not be reopened indirectly in subsequent proceedings without first being set aside in the manner known to law. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 May 2018 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360779 Where the goods and manufacturing process were disclosed in periodic returns and the department conducted audits, absence of suppression or concealment meant the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked, and the demand for that period failed. The document also states that refunds already sanctioned and not challenged had attained finality, so they could not be reopened indirectly in subsequent proceedings without first being set aside in the manner known to law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360779