Extended limitation cannot be invoked without suppression or intent to evade where conduct followed departmental directions.

Where an assessee acted in line with departmental communications on the duty position and altered payment accordingly, and the record showed no suppression of facts, fraud, or intent to evade, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The discussion applies the principle that Revenue must establish more than a mere demand dispute to justify extended limitation; absent evidence of concealment or evasion, the demand is unsustainable. The analysis follows an earlier Tribunal view on the same factual pattern and concludes that the extended period was not available, with the demand set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The appellant had acted in the backdrop of departmental communications regarding the duty position on soap stock and had been paying or discontinuing payment based on the Revenue's own directions. The record did not disclose suppression of facts, fraud, or any intent to evade duty. The issue was identical to an earlier Tribunal decision on the same factual pattern, where invocation of the extended period was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified and the demand was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee's conduct is consistent with departmental directions and the Revenue fails to establish suppression or intent to evade, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---