Extended limitation requires wilful suppression; disputed classification and exemption claims alone do not justify the longer period.

The extended period of limitation was unavailable where the assessee had disclosed the goods model in the classification declaration and the record did not show fraud, wilful suppression, or deliberate misstatement. The dispute on classification and exemption eligibility was treated as contentious, so rejection of the exemption claim on merits did not by itself justify longer limitation. The earlier tribunal observations were regarded as merged in the Supreme Court decision, and reconsideration was confined to limitation. The matter was thus resolved in favour of the assessee on the limitation issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand in the absence of wilful suppression or misstatement by the assessee.

Analysis: The dispute regarding classification and eligibility for exemption under the notifications was held to be contentious. The assessee had declared the model of the goods in the classification declaration, and the record did not establish a positive act of fraud or deliberate concealment to wrongfully obtain the exemption. In the circumstances, the mere rejection of the exemption claim on merits did not justify invocation of the longer limitation period. The earlier observations in the Tribunal order were treated as having merged in the Supreme Court decision, and the matter was to be reconsidered only on limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---