Extended limitation cannot rest on suppression when price declarations and supporting orders were already disclosed.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had filed price declarations disclosing transportation charges claimed as deduction and had also furnished the relevant work orders and purchase orders. As those documents were already available to the department, there was no suppression of facts to justify extended limitation. The demand was therefore correctly held to be time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts, despite the assessee having filed price declarations under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with relevant work orders and purchase orders.

Analysis: The declarations filed by the assessee showed disclosure of transportation charges claimed as deduction, and the accompanying work orders and purchase orders were available to the department. In these circumstances, non-disclosure of any further fact could not be treated as suppression. The Tribunal held that the material already on record negatived the allegation necessary to invoke the extended period of limitation, and the demand was therefore correctly held to be time-barred.

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

---