Extended limitation period not available where brand name was not disclosed in the declaration for branded video cassettes.

Non-disclosure of manufacture of branded video cassettes in a declaration filed under Notification No. 13/92-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as not amounting to suppression of facts or mis-statement for the purpose of limitation. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions holding that failure to disclose the brand name did not justify invocation of the extended period, and noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's appeal in one such matter. On that basis, the lower appellate authority's finding that the demand was time-barred was upheld, and the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-disclosure of manufacture of branded video cassettes in the declaration filed under Notification No. 13/92-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-05-1992 amounted to suppression of facts or mis-statement so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had held that failure to disclose the brand name did not amount to suppression or mis-statement. It also noticed that one such decision had been carried in appeal and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's appeal. In that backdrop, the finding of the lower appellate authority that the demand was time-barred was found to be justified.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the demand could not be sustained as time-barred.

---