Extended limitation requires proof of deliberate suppression; absence of concealment barred the excise demand.

Extended limitation under central excise law could not be invoked because the revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression or misstatement to evade duty. The assessee had filed the relevant declarations with the jurisdictional authorities when the units commenced operations, and there was no evidence that the later setting up of the other unit was concealed from the authority dealing with the first unit. As the material facts were not withheld and no contrary evidence was produced, the demand beyond the normal period was barred by limitation and the assessee succeeded on that issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand on the ground of suppression or misstatement by the assessee.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the assessee had withheld material facts while availing one exemption notification and also using Cenvat credit in another unit. The record showed that the relevant declarations were filed with the respective jurisdictional authorities when the units commenced operations, and there was no evidence that the assessee had concealed the subsequent setting up of the other unit from the authority having jurisdiction over the first unit. The revenue did not produce contrary material to establish deliberate suppression or misstatement to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand dropped on limitation was correctly set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue failed to establish suppression or misstatement, so the demand beyond the normal period could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under central excise law cannot be sustained without evidence of deliberate suppression or misstatement to evade duty.

---