https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51481 Extended limitation under central excise law requires proof of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Where the declaration form did not require disclosure of brand name usage, the assessee's omission to mention it could not, by itself, constitute suppression. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's bona fide understanding and held that the longer limitation period was unavailable. As a result, the demand raised for the extended period and the accompanying penalty were unsustainable and were set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:16:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51481 Extended limitation under central excise law requires proof of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Where the declaration form did not require disclosure of brand name usage, the assessee's omission to mention it could not, by itself, constitute suppression. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's bona fide understanding and held that the longer limitation period was unavailable. As a result, the demand raised for the extended period and the accompanying penalty were unsustainable and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51481