Limitation on duty demand fails where credit entries and invoices were regularly disclosed, defeating suppression allegations.

Duty demand was found time-barred because the assessee had periodically disclosed the credit entries, invoices and cross-utilisation details through the RG 23A Part-II register and monthly invoice submissions for defacement. On those facts, the Tribunal held that the department was already aware of the relevant transactions, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked on an allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, along with interest and penalty, was barred by limitation in view of the department's knowledge of the credit entries and invoices submitted periodically by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee contended that the manner of cross-utilisation of credit was fully reflected in the RG 23A Part-II register and the corresponding invoices furnished at the end of each month for defacement, from which the nature of the inputs and the duty credit availed were evident. On that basis, the department could not invoke the extended period on the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal accepted this plea and held that the material on record showed departmental knowledge of the relevant facts, defeating the plea of limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the duty and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---