Extended limitation cannot be invoked where branded manufacture and trade-name details were fully disclosed in the declaration.

Disclosure in the prescribed Rule 173B declaration of branded manufacture, including goods bearing another concern's trade name, put the department on notice of the relevant facts. On those facts, there was no wilful suppression or misdeclaration, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The departmental demand therefore could not be sustained on that basis, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was left undisturbed by CESTAT.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked against the assessee when the manufacture of branded goods and the relevant particulars were disclosed in the prescribed declaration.

Analysis: The assessee had filed the declaration under Rule 173B and specifically stated that branded goods were being manufactured, including goods bearing the trade name of another concern. The declaration and attached labels brought the relevant facts to the department's notice. On those facts, there was no basis to infer wilful suppression or misdeclaration so as to justify invocation of the extended time limit.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available; the departmental demand could not be sustained on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was left undisturbed.

---