https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376161 Where the department had prior knowledge of the manner in which CENVAT credit was being availed, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Disclosure of the method of availment before the show-cause notice, and earlier explanation of the procedure, negatived any allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. Mere omission or non-declaration was held insufficient; a positive act showing deliberate suppression was required. As the notice was issued nearly four years after the relevant disclosure, the demand was held time-barred and the order was set aside for the assessee. The merits of the credit dispute were not examined. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:24:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376161 Where the department had prior knowledge of the manner in which CENVAT credit was being availed, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Disclosure of the method of availment before the show-cause notice, and earlier explanation of the procedure, negatived any allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. Mere omission or non-declaration was held insufficient; a positive act showing deliberate suppression was required. As the notice was issued nearly four years after the relevant disclosure, the demand was held time-barred and the order was set aside for the assessee. The merits of the credit dispute were not examined. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376161