Limitation under Central Excise law fails when facts are disclosed and suppression is not established.

Disclosure of the clearance of inputs as such and the duty position through correspondence placed the material facts within the department's knowledge. In the absence of suppression of facts, the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked. As the show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, the demand was time-barred and did not survive on limitation; the merits were not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the absence of suppression of facts by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had intimated the department about the clearance of inputs as such and the duty position through correspondence dated 19.05.2000 and 14.01.2002. In view of these disclosures, the material facts were held to be within the knowledge of the department. Since the show-cause notice was issued on 21.01.2003 beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 11A(1), and no suppression of facts was established, the demand could not survive on limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the appeal was allowed on limitation alone, without adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts to the department, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts.

---