Extended limitation period unavailable without suppression; binding precedent also upheld the assessee on merits.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the Revenue failed to establish collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The demand was therefore unsustainable on limitation. On merits, the dispute was already covered by binding precedent in favour of the assessee, including the earlier M.M.K. Jewellers view. The appeal consequently failed and the order in favour of the assessee remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation and whether the impugned demand was covered against the assessee on merits.

Analysis: The unit was governed by the customs exemption notifications applicable to SEEPZ jewellery manufacture. The Tribunal had found that the Revenue had not established collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and therefore the extended period was unavailable. The Tribunal also relied on the earlier decision in M.M.K. Jewellers, a view which had already been upheld.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained against the assessee on the ground of limitation, and the merits were also covered by binding precedent in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order in favour of the assessee stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, and a dispute squarely covered by binding precedent must be decided accordingly.

---