Extended limitation in job-work duty demand fails absent wilful suppression by the job worker.

Extended limitation was held unavailable where job-work clearances were made during 1-6-1998 to 31-8-1999 and the notice was issued on 2-7-2003. The only lapse was the suppliers' non-compliance with Notification No. 83/94-C.E.; that procedural default, by itself, did not establish wilful suppression or intent to evade duty by the job worker who returned processed goods to the suppliers. In the absence of material showing deliberate evasion, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand was barred by time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand, and whether there was wilful suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The dispute related to job-work clearances during the period 1-6-1998 to 31-8-1999, while the show cause notice was issued only on 2-7-2003. The Court found no material to justify invocation of the longer period. The only lapse was non-compliance with the procedure under Notification No. 83/94-C.E. by the suppliers, and that circumstance by itself did not establish that the appellant, acting as a job worker and returning the processed goods to the suppliers, had cleared goods with intent to evade duty. In the absence of wilful suppression, the demand could not survive on the extended period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not sustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation, and the appeal succeeded on the ground of time bar.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-compliance with a procedural notification by the supplier, without wilful suppression or intent to evade duty by the job worker, does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---