Disclosure in returns and invoices defeats suppression allegation and bars a delayed excise duty demand.

Regular filing of RT-12 returns and submission of invoices that disclosed the deductions claimed under Section 4 defeated any allegation of suppression of facts. Because the department had access to those records and raised no timely objection, intent to evade duty could not be presumed. The delayed demand for differential central excise duty for 1995-96 was therefore barred by limitation and was not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential central excise duty for the period 1995-96 was sustainable in view of the assessee's regular filing of RT-12 returns and invoices, so as to negate suppression of facts and the bar of limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had filed monthly RT-12 returns along with copies of invoices during the relevant period, and the invoices themselves disclosed the deductions claimed under Section 4. The authorities had access to these records and did not call for any explanation at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the invocation of suppression of facts and intent to evade duty was not supported by the record, and the demand raised after the delay could not be sustained on limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation plea succeeded and the demand for differential duty was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee's returns and invoices fully disclose the relevant deductions and the department takes no timely objection, suppression of facts and intent to evade duty cannot be presumed so as to defeat the plea of limitation.

---