https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49053 Non-disclosure of another person's brand name in a Central Excise classification list does not, by itself, justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. The analysis turns on Rule 173B: if the brand name was not a fact statutorily required to be declared, omission to mention it cannot amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. The earlier line of authority treats extended limitation as unavailable in the absence of a positive act of concealment or a specific legal duty to disclose the omitted fact. en-us Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49053 Non-disclosure of another person's brand name in a Central Excise classification list does not, by itself, justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. The analysis turns on Rule 173B: if the brand name was not a fact statutorily required to be declared, omission to mention it cannot amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. The earlier line of authority treats extended limitation as unavailable in the absence of a positive act of concealment or a specific legal duty to disclose the omitted fact. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49053