Extended limitation for suppression requires proof of deliberate non-disclosure; mere omission is insufficient to sustain a time-barred demand.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the existence of multiple manufacturing units and the manner in which exemption was claimed. In the absence of any departmental investigation or evidence of deliberate suppression of material facts, mere non-disclosure of the ineligibility of one unit was insufficient to establish intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression of the existence of multiple manufacturing units and non-disclosure of the ineligibility of one unit for exemption.

Analysis: The respondent had itself brought the relevant facts to the notice of the Department by letters disclosing the existence of the units and the manner in which exemption had been availed. The record did not show any departmental investigation or any evidence proving deliberate suppression of material facts. Mere non-disclosure, without evidence of intent to evade duty, was insufficient to sustain invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Department and the demand was time-barred.

---