Limitation in excise demand fails where registration and disclosure negate suppression or intent to evade duty.

Duty demand was held time-barred because the assessee had registered, filed the classification list and undertaking before claiming exemption, and the department already knew the unit was operating from premises earlier used by another concern. On these facts, there was no material to support suppression of facts or a misstatement with intent to evade duty. As the show cause notice was issued after the relevant period, the extended limitation period was not available and the demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation on the ground that the assessee had not suppressed material facts or made any misstatement with intent to evade duty while claiming the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.

Analysis: The assessee had applied for registration and filed the classification list and undertaking before availing the exemption. The department was aware that the unit was operating from the same premises earlier used by another concern. In these circumstances, the record did not support any allegation of suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty. The show cause notice having been issued after the relevant period, the demand was held to be time-barred.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the finding of no suppression or misstatement was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

---