Extended limitation in excise demands requires proved suppression and cannot rest on grounds beyond the show cause notice.

Extended limitation under excise law was unavailable because the department did not prove suppression of material facts where the assessee had already filed and got approved the relevant price lists and agreement. The adjudication order also could not survive to the extent it relied on non-production of the agreement and suppression, since those grounds were not specifically alleged in the show cause notices. As the order travelled beyond the notices and the extended period was not justified, the demand was held time-barred and the appeal succeeded on limitation, leaving valuation merits undecided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period could not be invoked in the absence of suppression of material facts, and whether the adjudication order could travel beyond the allegations made in the show cause notices.

Analysis: The assessee had filed price lists and the agreement with the department, and the price lists stood approved. The show cause notices proceeded on undervaluation, whereas the adjudication order was founded on non-production of the agreement and suppression, an not specifically alleged in the notices. In such circumstances, the department failed to establish suppression of material facts so as to justify invocation of the extended period. The order also could not be sustained to the extent it went beyond the scope of the show cause notices.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the impugned order was unsustainable; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted on limitation alone, leaving the merits of valuation undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under excise law can be invoked only on proof of suppression of material facts, and an adjudication order cannot rest on grounds not alleged in the show cause notice.

---