Extended limitation period under central excise law requires proven suppression of facts with intent to evade duty in job-work clearances.

In job-work clearances, the extended period of limitation under central excise law is invocable only on proof of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Where raw materials were received under Rule 57F(3) challans and the invoices disclosed the basis on which duty was paid, there was no material showing deliberate withholding of information. As the ingredients for invoking the extended period were not established, the differential duty demand was time-barred against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The goods were cleared under the job-work procedure, the raw materials supplied by the principal were received under Rule 57F(3) challans, and the invoices disclosed the basis on which duty was paid. On the record, there was no material showing deliberate withholding of information or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. In those circumstances, the ingredients necessary to sustain invocation of the extended period were not established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the entire demand was time-barred in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period under the central excise law can be invoked only when suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty is proved; where the job-work transactions are transparently disclosed, the demand is barred by limitation.

---