Extended limitation requires proven suppression or intent to evade duty; disclosed facts made the notice time-barred.

Extended limitation under central excise law cannot be invoked without evidence of conscious suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty. Here, the assessee had disclosed the arrangement with its sister concern, enclosed the agreement, filed monthly returns, and the units had merged from 01.04.2000. On those facts, the basis for alleging suppression was not established, so the extended period was unavailable and the show cause notice was time-barred; the demand could not be sustained on limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or fraud with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the arrangement with the sister concern, enclosed the agreement, and filed monthly returns. The record also showed that the units stood merged with effect from 01.04.2000. On these facts, there was no material to show conscious withholding of information or suppression with intent to evade duty. The basis for invoking the extended period was therefore not made out.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the show cause notice was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on limitation, and the controversy on merits was left unanswered.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under the central excise law cannot be invoked in the absence of evidence of conscious suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

---