https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44824 Full disclosure of the transfer of modvat inputs between units prevented any inference of suppression, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked and the demand was barred by limitation. The High Court also held that a writ petition remained maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 35G because the Tribunal's finding on suppression disclosed a patent error apparent on the record. On that basis, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the assessee succeeded. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:58:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44824 Full disclosure of the transfer of modvat inputs between units prevented any inference of suppression, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked and the demand was barred by limitation. The High Court also held that a writ petition remained maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 35G because the Tribunal's finding on suppression disclosed a patent error apparent on the record. On that basis, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44824