Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without proved suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.

Where an assessee disclosed the relevant undertakings and particulars to claim exemption, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent proved suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The record did not establish such suppression, and the prior precedent relied on had been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, reinforcing the limitation defence. The demand was therefore unsustainable on limitation, and the connected matter was disposed of as abated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department had established suppression of facts with intent to evade duty so as to invoke the extended period of limitation for the demand under the exemption notifications.

Analysis: The respondent had furnished the relevant undertakings and details to the department for availing the exemption. The adjudicating record did not show suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal also noted that the earlier decision relied upon by the lower authority had been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, supporting the view that the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the order setting aside the demand on limitation was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed on limitation, while the connected matter was disposed of as abated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts for availing exemption, the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of proved suppression with intent to evade duty.

---