https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33417 After substitution of section 35G of the Central Excise Act, a High Court proceeding had to be treated as an appeal involving a substantial question of law, not as a reference on a simple question of law; the correct procedural route was therefore an appeal under the amended provision. On limitation, the extended period under section 11A could not be invoked merely on an allegation of suppression where the Tribunal had found as a fact that the department knew of the manufacturing activity and had been informed by the assessee. In the absence of perversity or legal error in that finding, the demand was time-barred. en-us Wed, 06 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33417 After substitution of section 35G of the Central Excise Act, a High Court proceeding had to be treated as an appeal involving a substantial question of law, not as a reference on a simple question of law; the correct procedural route was therefore an appeal under the amended provision. On limitation, the extended period under section 11A could not be invoked merely on an allegation of suppression where the Tribunal had found as a fact that the department knew of the manufacturing activity and had been informed by the assessee. In the absence of perversity or legal error in that finding, the demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33417