Extended limitation under central excise failed where prior disclosure defeated any allegation of suppression of facts.

The extended period for central excise demand could not be invoked where the department alleged suppression only because dyeing of grey yarn was not shown in monthly ER-1 returns. The record showed that the assessee had already informed the Revenue about the job work and dyeing activity through written letters, and the original authority noted that this information was available with the department. On those facts, suppression of facts was not established, so the basis for extended limitation under Section 11A failed. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the confirmation of duty and penalty was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation under the extended period invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The show cause notice invoked the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis that the appellant had not declared dyeing of grey yarn in the monthly ER-I returns. The record, however, showed that the appellant had furnished information regarding the job work and dyeing activity by letters dated 13.08.2004 and 11.02.2005, and the original authority itself noted availability of this information with the Revenue. In these circumstances, suppression of facts was not established, and the foundation for invoking the extended period failed.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the impugned order confirming duty and penalty was not sustainable.

---