Extended limitation cannot be invoked where provisional assessments and known facts defeat any claim of suppression.

Provisional assessments cannot justify invocation of the extended period of limitation where the relevant facts were already within the Revenue's knowledge. Here, the assessable value depended on raw material costs supplied by the job-worker principal, so the appellant's assessments were kept provisional and later finalised after verification of the facts and cost accountant's certificates. Once those finalised assessments attained finality and were not challenged by the Revenue, an allegation of misrepresentation could not sustain the longer limitation period. The demand was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked when the assessments were provisional and the relevant facts were already within the knowledge of the Revenue.

Analysis: The assessments at the appellant's end were kept provisional because the assessable value depended on the cost of raw materials supplied by the job worker principal, whose own assessments were also provisional. The Central Excise authorities were aware of this arrangement and later finalised the appellant's assessments after verifying the relevant facts and the cost accountant's certificates. Once the finalised assessments had attained finality and were not challenged by the Revenue, the allegation that the appellant had procured finalisation by misrepresentation could not support invocation of the longer period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was barred by limitation in favour of the assessee.

---