Limitation under Central Excise law cannot rest on suppression when the agreement was disclosed and fully known to the Department.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked on the basis of suppression where the sourcing agreement had been disclosed to the Department and the transactions were carried out in accordance with that agreement. The relevant agreement was already on record and within the Department's knowledge from March-April 1995, and the show cause notice did not allege receipt of consideration beyond what the agreement contemplated. In the absence of any factual basis to infer suppression, the extended period was unavailable. The show cause notice dated 27-3-2000 was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression when the sourcing agreement had been disclosed to the Department and the transactions were carried out in accordance with that agreement.

Analysis: The dispute on alleged direct and indirect consideration was already covered by the Tribunal's earlier view, and the Court found no reason to disturb that approach. On limitation, the relevant agreement was admittedly filed and was within the Department's knowledge from March-April 1995. The show cause notice did not allege receipt of consideration beyond what was contemplated in the agreement. In these circumstances, there was no basis to infer suppression of facts so as to justify resort to the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the show cause notice dated 27-3-2000 was barred by limitation.

---