Limitation by suppression in central excise requires concealment by the job worker; audit scrutiny weakened extended-period invocation.

In central excise matters involving a job worker acting under declarations furnished by principal manufacturers under Notification No. 214/86-CE, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because duty was not paid by the principal manufacturers. Where the departmental audit had already examined the assessee's operations during the relevant period and the record showed no concealment or suppression of material facts by the job worker, the limitation issue was determinative and not the merits of duty liability. On those facts, non-payment by the principals was insufficient to establish suppression by the job worker, and the extended period was held not invocable against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the central excise law could be invoked on the ground of suppression or concealment of facts by the job worker.

Analysis: The job worker had acted under declarations furnished by the principal manufacturers under Notification No. 214/86-CE, and the departmental audit had already examined the assessee's operations during the relevant period. On those facts, the non-payment of duty by the principal manufacturers could not by itself be treated as suppression by the job worker. The record disclosed no material showing that the assessee had concealed any relevant fact from the department, and the issue was held to be one of limitation rather than of duty liability on merits.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable against the assessee.

---