Suppression and extended limitation fail where fully disclosed price lists were approved, defeating the duty demand and penalty.

Where the relevant price lists for the same goods were fully disclosed in the prescribed forms and approved by the department, suppression was not established and the extended period of limitation under section 11A could not be invoked. The difference between prices charged for captive consumption and to independent buyers, without a valid basis for alleging concealment, was insufficient to sustain the demand. The duty demand was therefore held barred by limitation, and the penalty was also set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation on the ground that the price lists for the goods were filed in the prescribed forms and approved, thereby excluding suppression and the extended period under section 11A; and whether the penalty could survive.

Analysis: The price lists relating to the same goods had been filed in Part II and Part VI and were approved by the departmental authorities. On that basis, the requisite suppression was not established. The discrepancy between the prices charged for captive consumption and to independent buyers did not justify invocation of the extended period in the absence of a valid foundation for alleging concealment.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation. The penalty was also set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were quashed and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant price lists for the same goods are fully disclosed and approved, suppression is not made out and the extended period of limitation under section 11A cannot be invoked.

---