Limitation for duty demand fails where facts were disclosed and extended period cannot rest on alleged suppression.

Disclosure of the manufacturing activity and the classification claim to the Revenue, followed by further particulars furnished to the Superintendent, meant the material facts were already within departmental knowledge and suppression could not be alleged. The show cause notice for the earlier period, issued by invoking the extended limitation period on the basis of suppression with intent to evade duty, was therefore unsustainable and the demand was time-barred. Because the demand failed on limitation, the classification issue was not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on account of absence of suppression of facts and, if so, whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The appellant had informed the Revenue of the manufacturing activity and its classification claim by letter dated 2-1-1995, and further details were furnished in response to the Superintendent's requisition. In these circumstances, the facts necessary to raise a suppression allegation were already disclosed. The show cause notice, issued for the earlier period by invoking the extended limitation period on the premise of suppression with intent to evade duty, was therefore unsustainable. Since the demand itself was set aside as time-barred, the question of classification was not examined.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

---