Extended limitation and transitional exemption relief denied to the department, with concessional duty upheld for parts of pollution-control equipment.

Extended period of limitation is unavailable where clearances, concessional assessments, certificates, invoices and RT-12 returns were already within departmental knowledge; a repeat notice on the same issue cannot sustain such invocation, so the demands were held time-barred. Concessional duty was also available for parts of the goods during the transitional period before the later exemption notification was amended to expressly include parts, because the earlier regime covered the goods and their parts and the goods were used in a fly ash handling system for pollution control purposes. The departmental appeals failed, with consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the departmental demands when the clearances and concessional assessments were fully within the department's knowledge; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to the concessional duty benefit for parts of the goods during the period before insertion of the specific entry for parts under the later exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the departmental demands when the clearances and concessional assessments were fully within the department's knowledge.

Analysis: The goods were cleared on the basis of certificates issued by the competent authority and addressed to the jurisdictional Superintendent, and the invoices and RT-12 returns reflected the concessional clearances. Where all material facts are within departmental knowledge, the extended period cannot be invoked. A second or subsequent notice on the same issue is also not sustainable for invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: The departmental demands were barred by limitation and the invocation of the extended period was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to the concessional duty benefit for parts of the goods during the period before insertion of the specific entry for parts under the later exemption notification.

Analysis: The earlier exemption regime covered the relevant goods and their parts, while the later notification initially omitted the specific entry for parts and was subsequently amended to include it. For the broken period between the commencement of the later notification and the amendment, the concession could not be denied when the goods were used as part of the fly ash handling system for pollution control purposes.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the concessional benefit for the disputed period, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals failed, and the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue as well as on entitlement to the concession for the disputed period, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation is unavailable where the relevant facts are fully disclosed to the department, and an exemption meant for the goods cannot be denied for parts during a transitional period when the notification scheme and subsequent amendment support the concession.

---