Extended period of limitation upheld where duty liability was known and material facts were suppressed in a central excise demand.

Where the record showed prior knowledge of duty liability and suppression of material facts, the extended period of limitation was held invocable for the central excise demand. The Tribunal noted that the duty demand related to clearances made earlier, while the notice was issued later, and that the assessee's statements had already been recorded. On that basis, the limitation objection failed, the challenge to the demand on limitation was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked for the duty demand.

Analysis: The demand related to clearances during the stated period, while the notice was issued later. The assessee's statements had been recorded earlier, and the record indicated knowledge of the duty liability. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that suppression was made out and that the extended period could be invoked.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. The limitation objection failed and the impugned order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected as the challenge to the demand on limitation did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows knowledge of duty liability and suppression of material facts, the extended period of limitation is invocable for central excise demand.

---