Extended limitation not available where valuation issue was debatable and no wilful suppression of facts was shown.

Extended limitation could not be invoked for duty demand where valuation of assessable value was linked to design and development charges, printing cylinder costs, and amortised dies, moulds and tools, and the issue had remained unsettled because of conflicting decisions. In the absence of material showing wilful suppression of facts or deliberate withholding of information with intent to evade duty, the statutory conditions for the extended period were not satisfied. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period of limitation, and the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demand of duty and penalty where the valuation issue had remained ed due to conflicting decisions and the assessee had not suppressed material facts.

Analysis: The demand arose from non-inclusion of design and development charges and the cost of printing cylinders in assessable value. The legal controversy on includibility of amortized cost of dies, moulds and tools had remained unsettled until it was resolved by the Larger Bench. In such a situation, where the issue itself was debatable and conflicting views existed, the ingredients necessary to invoke the extended period, namely suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, were not established. The absence of material showing wilful suppression or deliberate withholding of information brought the case within the normal period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was liable to be considered only within the normal period; the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue.

---