Extended limitation not invocable where facts were known and an earlier final order on the same issue already existed.

Where the department already knew the material facts and an earlier final adjudication on the same issue covered an overlapping period, suppression could not be alleged to invoke the extended period of limitation. The later demand, being contrary to the unchallenged prior order on identical facts, was held barred by limitation and unsustainable. The analysis also applied the principle of res judicata to prevent reopening the same dispute on the same core factual matrix.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and the demand sustained when the department already knew the relevant facts and an earlier order on the same overlapping issue had attained finality.

Analysis: The proceedings covered the same core factual matrix as an earlier adjudication between the same parties, and the periods in the two show cause notices overlapped. The earlier order had dropped the demand on the very issue now sought to be reopened, and the Revenue had not challenged that order. On these facts, the department could not take a contrary view in the later order on identical material. The prior final order, together with the department's knowledge of the facts, made the invocation of the extended period unsustainable. The decision also attracted the principle of res judicata.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was not invocable; the impugned order could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department is already aware of the material facts and an earlier final adjudication on the same issue and overlapping period exists, suppression cannot be alleged to justify the extended period of limitation, and a subsequent contrary demand is not maintainable.

---