Extended limitation under central excise law fails where goods and clearances were fully disclosed in statutory records.

Extended limitation under central excise law could not be invoked where the assessee had already disclosed the goods by description in the classification list, RT-12 returns and invoices, and the department relied on the same records. Mere non-disclosure of the end use of the goods did not amount to wilful suppression or misdeclaration when all material facts about the goods and clearances were placed before the department. If a different classification was to be examined, the department had to undertake further enquiry on the disclosed material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the central excise law could be invoked on the allegation of suppression and misdeclaration when the assessee had disclosed the products in the classification list, RT-12 returns and invoices.

Analysis: The assessee had filed declarations under Rule 173D of the Central Excise Rules identifying the goods by description, and the RT-12 returns and invoices disclosed the clearances to the buyer. The demand was founded on the same records already made available to the department. Non-disclosure of the ultimate use of the goods did not amount to wilful suppression or misstatement where all material facts relating to the goods and clearances had been placed before the department. In such circumstances, it was for the department to make further enquiry if it wished to examine a different classification.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: When the assessee has disclosed the relevant particulars of the goods and clearances in the statutory returns and supporting documents, mere non-disclosure of end use does not constitute suppression or misdeclaration for invoking the extended period.

---