Limitation for duty demand fails absent suppression of facts; full disclosure and prior departmental knowledge bar extended period.

Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had regularly filed RT-12 returns and disclosed its small-scale exemption claim under Rule 173B, because the relevant facts were already on record and acknowledged by the department. The concurrent findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were that no suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty was established. On that basis, the longer limitation period was unavailable and the duty demand was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for short payment of duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessee had been regularly filing RT-12 returns and had also filed the declaration under Rule 173B claiming the small-scale exemption. The relevant facts were on record and had been acknowledged by the department, and an earlier notice on the same issue had already been issued. On these facts, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal concurrently found that no suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty was established, and therefore the longer period of limitation could not be applied.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred, and the revenue's appeal failed.

---