Extended limitation in central excise fails where department already knew the relevant manufacturing and job-work facts.

The extended period of limitation for central excise demand could not be invoked because the department already knew of the manufacturing and job-work arrangements from earlier correspondence and statements. The record showed that the relevant facts were disclosed to the department from at least 2003 onwards, and the show-cause notice itself reflected the processes followed. As the essential ingredients of suppression with intent to evade duty were not established, the demand for 2004-05 to 2006-07 was held time-barred and the department's appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty for the period 2004-05 to 2006-07 was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The department was aware of the manufacturing and job-work arrangements from an earlier period, including correspondence and statements recording the nature of the processes undertaken. The material on record showed that the relevant facts were within the department's knowledge from at least 2003 onwards, and the show-cause notice itself reflected disclosure of the processes followed. In these circumstances, the essential ingredients required to invoke the extended period under the limitation provision were not established.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the appeals filed by the department failed.

---