https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447266 Clandestine clearances, seized contemporaneous records, and unretired statements were treated as sufficient to invoke the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the demand for 01.04.2010 to 09.07.2010 was not time-barred. An alleged assignment deed for the brands 'REAL' and 'NICE' was disbelieved as an afterthought, as it was not timely disclosed and was unsupported by independent proof; the goods were therefore treated as third-party branded goods and SSI exemption was denied. Penalties on the firms and proprietors were sustained because the evidence supported clandestine removals and the double jeopardy objection failed. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:40:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447266 Clandestine clearances, seized contemporaneous records, and unretired statements were treated as sufficient to invoke the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the demand for 01.04.2010 to 09.07.2010 was not time-barred. An alleged assignment deed for the brands 'REAL' and 'NICE' was disbelieved as an afterthought, as it was not timely disclosed and was unsupported by independent proof; the goods were therefore treated as third-party branded goods and SSI exemption was denied. Penalties on the firms and proprietors were sustained because the evidence supported clandestine removals and the double jeopardy objection failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447266