Extended limitation cannot be invoked without positive suppression when the department already knew the relevant facts.

Where the assessee had filed statutory declarations and the department already knew of the relevant unit structure, mere non-disclosure of clearances in one unit's declaration did not amount to positive suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked, and the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period was time barred and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued to the assessee for the Alang unit was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The units of the assessee were registered with the Central Excise Department and declarations had been filed with the jurisdictional authorities. The existence of the other unit was already within the department's knowledge, and the earlier Tribunal order in the assessee's own case had held that there was no positive suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Mere non-disclosure of clearances in the declaration of one unit, when the existence of the other unit was known, was insufficient to justify invocation of the extended period. In these circumstances, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period could not survive.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was time barred, the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked, and the demand was not sustainable. The appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee had filed declarations and the department had knowledge of the relevant facts, mere non-disclosure without positive suppression and intent to evade duty does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---