<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (4) TMI 127 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47608</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked on the ground of suppression where the departmental authorities were already aware of the relevant facts through an earlier show cause notice. The later notices proceeded on the same or similar factual basis, so the same facts could not be treated as concealment by the assessee. The Court applied earlier precedent that once material facts are within the department&#039;s knowledge, a subsequent notice on the same facts cannot rely on suppression to extend limitation. The plea of suppression therefore failed, and the extended period was unavailable to the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 127 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47608</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked on the ground of suppression where the departmental authorities were already aware of the relevant facts through an earlier show cause notice. The later notices proceeded on the same or similar factual basis, so the same facts could not be treated as concealment by the assessee. The Court applied earlier precedent that once material facts are within the department&#039;s knowledge, a subsequent notice on the same facts cannot rely on suppression to extend limitation. The plea of suppression therefore failed, and the extended period was unavailable to the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>