https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422987 In an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose because the Tribunal's view on suppression and limitation was based on factual appreciation. The Tribunal had found that the assessee filed ST-3 returns and disclosed material facts, so the show cause notice invoking the extended period was not sustainable. As no perversity was shown in those findings, the court declined interference and rejected the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's conclusion that the extended period of limitation was unavailable. en-us Tue, 17 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422987 In an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose because the Tribunal's view on suppression and limitation was based on factual appreciation. The Tribunal had found that the assessee filed ST-3 returns and disclosed material facts, so the show cause notice invoking the extended period was not sustainable. As no perversity was shown in those findings, the court declined interference and rejected the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's conclusion that the extended period of limitation was unavailable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422987