Extended limitation cannot be invoked without a challenge to the no-suppression finding, even if payments were made during adjudication.

Where the adjudicating authority recorded that the assessee had not suppressed material facts or acted with intent to evade duty, and the Revenue did not specifically challenge that finding, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The assessee's deposits during adjudication did not, by themselves, justify denial of limitation. On that basis, the demand was held barred by limitation for the entire disputed period, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had recorded a categorical finding that the assessee had not suppressed material facts with intent to evade duty. That finding was not specifically assailed by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal. The mere fact that the assessee had deposited amounts during adjudication could not, by itself, justify denial of the benefit of limitation. In the absence of a challenge to the finding on suppression, the extended period could not be sustained for any part of the demand.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudicating authority records a finding of no suppression or intent to evade duty, and the Revenue does not specifically challenge that finding, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because the assessee made payments during the proceedings.

---