Extended limitation requires proven suppression or intent to evade; disclosed facts and unsettled law defeated interference.

Extended limitation for tax recovery required proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate contravention with intent to evade duty. On the material described, disclosure of the use and clearance of steam, together with a bona fide basis for treating fuel-used inputs as outside the credit restriction, did not support an allegation of suppression, and the legal position was not settled against the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal also had not recorded a reasoned finding on suppression. In these circumstances, the extended period was not available and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression of facts, and whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Analysis: For invocation of the extended period, the revenue had to establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate contravention with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal had disposed of the matter without recording a reasoned finding on suppression, but the record showed that the assessee had disclosed the use and clearance of steam and had a bona fide basis for contending that inputs used as fuel were outside the relevant credit restriction. In the circumstances, the evidence did not support the allegation of suppression, and the legal position at the relevant time was not settled against the assessee.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and no substantial question of law arose.

---