Extended limitation barred where disclosed contract details and returns negated suppression of facts

Extended limitation could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the works contracts, contract price break-up, excise duty, freight and sales tax details, and had filed monthly RT-12 returns and excise invoices. As the relevant facts, including movement of goods and freight element, were already available to the department, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The larger period of limitation was therefore unjustified, and the demand for the stated period was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the ground of suppression of facts and mis-declaration, and whether the impugned demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished the works contracts, the split-up of the contract price showing ex-factory price, excise duty, freight and sales tax, and also filed monthly RT-12 returns and excise invoices. The relevant facts were thus available with the department, including the movement of goods and the freight element. In these circumstances, the department failed to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the invocation of the larger period of limitation was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand for the period 1-10-1996 to 30-9-2000 was barred by limitation and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

---