Extended limitation for suppression failed where the dispute involved a bona fide doubt over dutiability and product description.

The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the dispute arose from a genuine doubt over dutiability and the description of the raw material, with no material showing suppression of turnover or misdeclaration. On that factual basis, the foundation for invoking extended limitation failed, and the consequential penalty and interest could not be revived. The finding was maintained in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and consequential penalty, interest and related penal provisions could be restored on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration.

Analysis: The finding recorded by the adjudicating authority and affirmed by the Tribunal was that the dispute turned on a genuine doubt regarding dutiability and on the description of the raw material, with no material to show suppression of turnover or misdeclaration. In the absence of contrary material, the conclusion that the extended period was not attracted was treated as a factual determination based on appreciation of record. Once the foundation for invoking extended limitation failed, the consequential demand of penalty and interest could not be revived.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the consequential penalties and interest were not liable to be restored; the finding was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---