Limitation under excise law fails without suppression where facts were already disclosed through approved filings and regular returns.

Where the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge through an approved classification list, fresh registration after takeover, and RT-12 returns, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. On those facts, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, so the duty demand was held time-barred and penalty did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of material facts by the appellant.

Analysis: The appellant had filed the classification list and obtained approval from the proper officer, and the department was aware that the factory had been taken over mid-year. The previous manufacturer's registration had been surrendered and a fresh registration had been granted to the appellant. RT-12 returns were regularly filed and no objection was raised for a long period. In these circumstances, the non-declaration relied upon by the Revenue did not establish suppression with intent to evade duty, and the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was hit by limitation and was not sustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty did not survive, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts were already within the knowledge of the department through approved classification filings, fresh registration, and regular returns, suppression with intent to evade duty is not established and the extended period of limitation cannot be applied.

---