Extended limitation under Central Excise unavailable where disclosures were made upfront and no suppression was proved.

The extended period of limitation under Central Excise law was unavailable where the assessee had disclosed the partnership deed, firm constitution, and plant and machinery details at inception, and the department already had the relevant records but did not act on them in time. A belated show cause notice based only on an interpretative dispute about proprietary interest and the status of the firm did not establish deliberate fraud, suppression, or misstatement. The demand could not therefore be sustained by invoking the extended period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise law was available to the department in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had disclosed the partnership deed, the constitution of the firm, and details of plant and machinery at the inception. The department had the relevant records in June 2001 itself and could have verified the eligibility for the special procedure at that stage. The notice was issued after several years, and the conclusion of suppression was founded only on an interpretative dispute about proprietary interest and the status of the firm, not on any concealed factual material. On the record, there was no basis to infer deliberate fraud, suppression, or misstatement so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

---