Extended limitation unavailable without suppression of facts in a duty demand dispute over structural fabrication.

Duty demand for 1993-94 was held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued only in January 1997 and the Revenue could not rely on the extended limitation period without proof of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the legal position on whether fabrication of structural items amounted to manufacture had been viewed differently at the relevant time, so the assessee could not be attributed with the requisite mens rea. The substantive manufacture issue was left open, as the matter was resolved on limitation alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The demand related to the period 1993-94, but the show cause notice was issued only in January 1997. The Tribunal noted that the relevant period was one in which the law on whether fabrication of structural items amounted to manufacture had been viewed differently, including a later decision holding such activity not to be manufacture. In that setting, the assessee could not be attributed with suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the extended limitation period was not available. The question whether the activity constituted manufacture was left open because the appeal could be decided on limitation alone.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---