Suppression of facts and extended limitation under central excise failed where the Tribunal found no factual suppression.

Repacking goods into unit containers was treated as manufacture, making duty otherwise payable, but the dispute turned on limitation. The Tribunal found as a fact that the assessee paid the admitted duty shortly after the departmental visit and that the show cause notice came much later, so there was no suppression of facts to justify the extended period under the Central Excise Act. The Court treated suppression as essentially a factual issue and upheld the Tribunal's setting aside of the differential duty demand and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act could be invoked on the footing of suppression of facts, and whether the levy of differential duty and penalty could be sustained when the Tribunal had found that there was no suppression.

Analysis: Repacking of the goods into unit containers was treated as manufacture under Note 5 to Chapter 38 read with Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so duty was otherwise exigible. The only surviving controversy was limitation. The Tribunal had recorded a factual finding that the assessee had paid the admitted duty shortly after the departmental visit and that the show cause notice was issued much later, and on that basis held that there was no suppression to justify the extended period under Section 11A(1). The Court applied the principle that whether there is suppression is essentially a question of fact, and that such a finding does not, by itself, raise a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the Tribunal's setting aside of the differential duty demand and penalty was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that there was no suppression of facts is a factual determination; in the absence of suppression, the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked.

---