Extended limitation under excise law fails where material facts were disclosed and no suppression was shown.

Disclosure of the lease of premises and machinery, together with the lease deed, was sufficient to put the department on notice of the relevant facts. Mere omission to expressly state that the predecessors manufactured the same product did not amount to suppression, because the department already had the material necessary to make timely enquiry. On that basis, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act could not be invoked, and the demand for the earlier period was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act could be invoked on the facts disclosed to the department.

Analysis: The appellants had informed the department, as early as 20 January 1982, that they had taken the premises and machinery on lease and had enclosed the lease deed. That disclosure was sufficient to put the department on notice that the earlier manufacturer had operated from the same premises. Mere failure to expressly state that the predecessors were manufacturing the same product did not amount to suppression. Since the department had the relevant information, it was expected to make timely enquiry and initiate proceedings within the normal period of limitation. The show cause notice issued on 7 March 1984 for the earlier period was therefore beyond time.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts necessary to detect the liability are disclosed to the department, omission to spell out every inferential fact does not constitute suppression so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---