Limitation and extended period dispute: disclosed advance licence supplies defeated suppression allegations and kept the demand time-barred.

A customs/excise demand was held to be time-barred because the assessee had disclosed supplies made against advance licences through statements certified by the departmental officer, and the department already knew the relevant details. The allegation that invoice-wise particulars were omitted from the ER-1 returns was insufficient to establish suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. On that factual basis, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether suppression of facts or wilful misstatement was established so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Analysis: The Revenue's challenge was confined to the finding that the demand was time-barred. The record showed that the assessee had been filing statements regarding supplies made against advance licences, which were certified by the departmental officer, and the details of such supplies were already within the department's knowledge. On these facts, the allegation that the assessee had suppressed invoice-wise particulars in the ER-1 returns was not sufficient to dislodge the finding that all material facts had been disclosed.

Conclusion: The demand was rightly held to be time-barred, and no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement was proved. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---