Suppression of facts and extended limitation fail where the department was already aware of the valuation method used.

The text explains that differential duty demand was treated as time-barred because the assessee had corresponded with the jurisdictional Superintendent and disclosed the variation between the commercial invoice price and the assessable value, including the deductions and the method used to compute assessable value. On that record, there was no deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. As the show cause notice was issued beyond the relevant period despite departmental awareness of the material facts, the demand was set aside as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty was barred by limitation on account of absence of suppression of facts by the assessee.

Analysis: The correspondence between the assessee and the jurisdictional Superintendent showed that the department had been informed about the variation between the commercial invoice price and the assessable value, including the deductions claimed and the manner in which the assessable value was worked out. The record therefore did not support any deliberate concealment with intent to evade duty. Since the show cause notice was issued after the relevant period and the material on record established departmental awareness of the facts, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be hit by limitation and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---