Extended limitation under excise law fails where filed declarations negate suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.

Extended limitation under the excise law could not be invoked where the assessees had filed statutory declarations describing the goods and claiming their classification, and those declarations were acknowledged by the department. Mere omission to state the exact classification for one product did not, by itself, establish suppression of facts or an intention to evade duty. On the facts recorded, the duty demands could not be sustained under the extended period of limitation, and the demands were set aside on limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demands could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, despite the assessees having filed declarations under the applicable excise rules.

Analysis: The demands had been raised under the extended period on the premise that the assessees had not properly disclosed the goods or their classification. The declarations filed by the assessees describing the goods and claiming classification were on record and had been acknowledged by the department. In these circumstances, mere omission to state the exact classification in the declaration for one product did not, by itself, establish suppression of facts or an intention to evade duty. Since the statutory declarations were duly filed, the extended limitation under the excise law could not be applied on the facts found.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not sustainable, and the demands were set aside on the ground of limitation.

---