https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443783 Central excise duty demand on galvanization undertaken on a job-work basis was held time-barred because the Department had already been aware of the activity through earlier proceedings and audits. Later audit action relied on the same facts, so suppression of facts could not be alleged to invoke the extended limitation period for recovery. The dispute was confined to limitation, as the assessee did not contest the merits. The extended period was therefore unavailable and the demand failed on limitation. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Oct 2023 08:38:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443783 Central excise duty demand on galvanization undertaken on a job-work basis was held time-barred because the Department had already been aware of the activity through earlier proceedings and audits. Later audit action relied on the same facts, so suppression of facts could not be alleged to invoke the extended limitation period for recovery. The dispute was confined to limitation, as the assessee did not contest the merits. The extended period was therefore unavailable and the demand failed on limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443783