https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53829 A second demand notice for the same period and amount was unsustainable where the earlier demand had already been dropped, no fresh material had emerged, and no suppression of facts was proved; the extended limitation period therefore could not be invoked and the repeated proceedings offended against parallel adjudication of the same matter. A demand also could not be based solely on the principal buyer's balance sheet without corroborating documents or independent evidence of undervaluation or suppression. The demand, along with penalty, confiscation and redemption fine, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2024 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53829 A second demand notice for the same period and amount was unsustainable where the earlier demand had already been dropped, no fresh material had emerged, and no suppression of facts was proved; the extended limitation period therefore could not be invoked and the repeated proceedings offended against parallel adjudication of the same matter. A demand also could not be based solely on the principal buyer's balance sheet without corroborating documents or independent evidence of undervaluation or suppression. The demand, along with penalty, confiscation and redemption fine, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53829