Extended limitation cannot be invoked on an already known and adjudicated dispute; penalty falls in a pure classification controversy.

Where the same manufacturing activity had already been within departmental knowledge and earlier adjudicated, the extended limitation period could not be invoked again on the basis of suppression. The duty demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period preceding the show cause notice. The document also notes that, in a pure classification dispute concerning fabricated trusses, penalty was not sustainable once the extended demand failed, and the penalty was set aside while the normal-period duty demand remained confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand for duty beyond the normal period was barred by limitation or whether the extended period could be invoked; (ii) whether penalty was sustainable where the dispute related to classification.

Issue (i): whether the demand for duty beyond the normal period was barred by limitation or whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The same dispute had earlier been raised and adjudicated, and the records showed departmental awareness of the activity. In such a situation, suppression could not be alleged merely because the assessee had not separately informed the authorities again. Following the principle that a second notice on the same issue cannot invoke the extended period once the matter was already known and adjudicated, the demand could be sustained only for the normal period of six months preceding the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable, and the demand was confined to the normal period of six months.

Issue (ii): whether penalty was sustainable where the dispute related to classification.

Analysis: The penalty arose out of a classification dispute concerning fabricated trusses. Where the controversy is one of classification and the larger dispute on duty is not sustained for the extended period, penalty is not warranted.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge to the limitation finding failed, the assessee's challenge to the confirmed duty for the normal period also failed, and only the penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a dispute on the same activity has already been within the department's knowledge and adjudicated, the extended period cannot be invoked again on the basis of suppression, and penalty is ordinarily not imposed in a pure classification dispute.

---