Suppression of facts in excise declarations was not established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

Disclosure of the manufacturing process in excise declarations defeated any allegation of suppression of material facts, because the original record showed the process as "Billet/Steel - Cutting - Heating - Rolling - Cutting - Hole". On that basis, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had made full disclosure was upheld, and the contrary view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was reversed. The factual finding was not shown to be perverse, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the assessee and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had suppressed material facts in the declarations filed under the excise rules so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The declarations produced from the original record disclosed the process of manufacture as "Billet/Steel - Cutting - Heating - Rolling - Cutting - Hole". On that material, the finding that the process of manufacture had been disclosed could not be faulted. The Tribunal was therefore justified in holding that there was no suppression of facts and in reversing the contrary finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). The factual finding of the Tribunal was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue and the challenge to the Tribunal's finding failed.

---