Extended limitation for exemption claims turns on disclosure in price lists, suppression, and proof of the notified price basis.

Extended limitation for duty recovery depends on whether the assessee's claim under Notification No. 245/83 involved suppression or misdeclaration. One view held that the price lists disclosed the DPCO-linked retail price and the claimed discount, and repeated departmental approval showed no suppression, so the demand was time-barred. The contrary view held that the assessee failed to prove that the prices were actually approved under DPCO, 1987, and that an unsupported exemption claim in the price list amounted to misdeclaration with intent to wrongly avail the benefit, so the extended period applied. The matter was therefore referred for a third Member.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of duty on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration while claiming the benefit of Notification No. 245/83.

Analysis: The Judicial Member held that the price lists filed before the department clearly disclosed that the retail price was fixed under the DPCO, 1987 and that 15% discount under Notification No. 245/83 was being claimed. Since the department had repeatedly approved the price lists and had not shown any suppression of facts, the Member held that the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred. The Technical Member, however, held that the appellant failed to produce evidence to prove that the prices were in fact approved under DPCO, 1987, and that the claim made in the price list, without supporting proof, amounted to misdeclaration with intent to fraudulently avail the exemption. On that view, the extended period was correctly invoked.

Conclusion: The Members differed on whether the demand was barred by limitation, and the matter was directed to be placed before the President for reference to a third Member.

---