Limitation for differential duty fails when revised capacity was disclosed and no suppression could be shown.

Differential duty for January 1998 was held time-barred because the department was already informed of the revised annual capacity and intended duty payment from 1-1-1998, and the monthly RT-12 returns disclosed payment on that revised basis. On those facts, no suppression of facts could be attributed to the assessee, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. As the show cause notice was issued beyond the then-applicable six-month normal period, the demand was treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty for January 1998 was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellant had sought redetermination of annual capacity and had informed the department of the revised parameters and the intended duty payment from 1-1-1998. Monthly RT-12 returns also disclosed payment on the revised capacity. On these facts, the department was already aware of the change, and no suppression of facts could be attributed to the appellant. The show cause notice for the period January 1998 was issued beyond the then-applicable six-month normal period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department is already informed of the relevant facts and the assessee's returns disclose the revised basis of payment, extended limitation cannot be invoked and a demand issued beyond the normal period is barred.

---