Extended limitation not prima facie available where facts were already known to the department, supporting full pre-deposit waiver.

Where the relevant facts were already within the department's knowledge, invocation of the extended limitation period was held prima facie unsustainable for interim purposes. The record showed that the unit's conversion, duty liability verification, duty deposit and departmental certification were already before the competent authorities during the relevant period. On that basis, the appellant established a strong prima facie case, justifying full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the facts being within the knowledge of the departmental authorities, the demand was hit by limitation so as to justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The material facts relating to conversion of the unit, verification of duty liability, deposit of duty, and certification by the departmental authorities were already within the record of the competent authorities during the relevant period. On that basis, invocation of the extended period for confirming demand of duty, interest, and penalty was found to be prima facie unsustainable for the purpose of interim relief.

Conclusion: A strong prima facie case existed in favour of the appellant, warranting waiver of pre-deposit in full and stay of all further recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are already within the knowledge of the department, the extended limitation period is not prima facie invocable for the purpose of insisting on pre-deposit and recovery.

---