Suppression of facts and extended limitation cannot apply when the Department already knows the relevant facts.

Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessees had filed classification declarations and RT-12 returns, and the Department was already aware of the goods and earlier disputes concerning them. On those facts, the allegation of suppression of material facts to evade duty was unsustainable because suppression must be strictly construed and cannot be made out when the relevant facts are already known to both sides. The duty demand was therefore held time-barred and the extended period was unavailable to the Department.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period could not be invoked for alleged suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellants had filed classification declarations and RT-12 returns describing the goods as hubs for animal-driven vehicles and had been availing exemption under the relevant notification. The record also showed earlier departmental proceedings concerning the same goods, including prior show cause notices and disputes relating to the nature of the goods, which indicated that the Department was aware of the product and its clearance pattern. In such circumstances, the allegation that the appellants suppressed material facts to evade duty could not be sustained. The principle applied was that suppression of facts must be strictly construed, and where facts are already known to both sides, omission by one party does not amount to suppression for invoking the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Department, and the duty demand was time-barred in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression of facts for the purpose of extending limitation arises only where material facts are withheld from the Department despite not being already known to it; when the Department is aware of the relevant facts, extended limitation cannot be invoked.

---