Prior disclosure defeats suppression and bars extended limitation in central excise demand disputes.

Prior disclosure to the jurisdictional officer defeated the allegation of suppression, because the supply and intended use of corrugated boxes had been communicated in advance and the department knew the relevant facts. On that basis, the extended limitation period under central excise law could not be invoked, and the demand was held time-barred. The appeal therefore succeeded on limitation alone, with the impugned order set aside and relief granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The jurisdictional officer had been informed about the supply and use of corrugated boxes well before the show cause notice, including an undertaking that the boxes would be used in the manufacture of the final products and that duty would be paid on the finished goods. In these circumstances, the Court found that the relevant facts were disclosed to the department, there was no material to establish suppression, and the Revenue could have taken timely action. The existence of prior disclosure also negatived any basis for invoking the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period was not invocable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on limitation alone, with the impugned order set aside and relief granted accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts are already within the department's knowledge, suppression cannot be alleged and the extended period of limitation under the central excise law cannot be invoked.

---