https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420695 Where the department was already aware of the relevant practice and the unit remained under physical control, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the earlier period because suppression was not established. The duty demand for January 2007 to 23.4.2009 was therefore time-barred. For the later period from 24.4.2009 to October 2011, the assessee had informed the department that the practice had stopped, so the demand rested only on presumption and not on an existing activity. The demand for that period was accordingly not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:02:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420695 Where the department was already aware of the relevant practice and the unit remained under physical control, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the earlier period because suppression was not established. The duty demand for January 2007 to 23.4.2009 was therefore time-barred. For the later period from 24.4.2009 to October 2011, the assessee had informed the department that the practice had stopped, so the demand rested only on presumption and not on an existing activity. The demand for that period was accordingly not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420695