Extended limitation in job-work valuation disputes fails absent proof of suppression or misdeclaration in disclosed invoicing.

Extended limitation cannot be invoked for valuation disputes in job-work manufacturing where the assessee values goods on the disclosed basis of customer-supplied scrap cost plus processing charges. The assessee's invoices showed the conversion from customer-supplied scrap and the valuation method adopted, and the record did not establish that it knew of any under-valuation by the supplier or of higher comparable values from another job worker. In the absence of express or implied suppression or misdeclaration, the demand could not be sustained beyond the normal period, and the notice was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked against the assessee on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration in the valuation of goods manufactured on job-work basis.

Analysis: The assessee valued the ingots on the basis of the cost of scrap supplied by the customer and the processing charges, which was consistent with the accepted principle governing valuation of goods produced on job-work basis. The record did not show that the assessee knew of any under-valuation of the scrap by the supplier, nor was there evidence that the assessee was aware of comparable goods being sold by another job worker at a higher assessable value. The invoices themselves disclosed that the conversion was from customer-supplied scrap and showed the basis of valuation adopted by the assessee. In these circumstances, no express or implied suppression or misdeclaration was established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded because the allegation of suppression failed and the notice could not be sustained beyond the normal period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee adopts a disclosed job-work valuation based on material cost and processing charges, and the department fails to establish knowledge of under-valuation or deliberate suppression, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---