Extended limitation period not invocable absent suppression or intent to evade duty in a debatable manufacture dispute.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where there was no evidence of suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The limitation objection had already been raised before the original adjudicating authority, and the dispute on whether the activity amounted to manufacture was treated as a debatable question of interpretation. On that basis, the assessee's view was held to be a plausible one, and the appellate authority sustained relief on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The limitation plea had been raised before the original adjudicating authority and was not a new plea raised for the first time in appeal. The record disclosed no evidence of suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intention to evade duty. The dispute as to whether the activity amounted to manufacture was treated as a debatable question of interpretation, and the assessee could legitimately entertain the same view as was ultimately accepted by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the invocation of the extended period was not justified.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the relief granted to the assessee on limitation was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on limitation, and the appeal was dismissed.

---