Extended limitation cannot be invoked when relevant facts were disclosed to the department in a recorded statement.

The extended period of limitation under excise law cannot be invoked on a charge of suppression where the assessee has already disclosed the relevant facts to the department in a recorded statement. The note records that the managing director had explained the fabrication and erection of the plant, the job-work arrangements, supply of raw material, fabrication of parts, and related expenditure during the departmental visit, and that these disclosures were relied on in the show cause notice itself. On that footing, suppression was not attributable to the assessee and the duty demand was treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The managing director's statement recorded during the departmental visit specifically disclosed the fabrication and erection of the solvent extraction plant, the contracts with the job workers, the supply of raw material, the fabrication of certain parts, and the expenditure incurred. The statement was relied upon in the show cause notice itself. In these circumstances, the material facts had been disclosed to the department and suppression could not be attributed to the assessee.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, the demand was time-barred, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has already disclosed the relevant facts to the department in a recorded statement relied upon in the show cause notice, the extended period cannot be invoked on the ground of suppression.

---