https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779382 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable where the department already knew of the assessee's draw warping activity and had required registration. The assessee had disclosed the activity and claimed exemption, so non-payment of duty and related non-compliance could not be treated as deliberate, wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. Suppression must be proven as intentional and fraud-like; where both sides knew the relevant facts, the extended period does not apply. The duty demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained on that basis, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:10:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779382 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable where the department already knew of the assessee's draw warping activity and had required registration. The assessee had disclosed the activity and claimed exemption, so non-payment of duty and related non-compliance could not be treated as deliberate, wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. Suppression must be proven as intentional and fraud-like; where both sides knew the relevant facts, the extended period does not apply. The duty demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained on that basis, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779382