Rule 10A inapplicable where no suppression existed and demand was barred by limitation on known processing costs.

The demand was found time-barred because the processor could know only the processing cost at clearance and not the eventual sale price, while the relevant information was already known to the officers. On those facts, there was no deliberate suppression of information and the conditions for Rule 10A were not satisfied; the matter was held to fall outside Rule 10A and in favour of the assessee. Provisional assessment could have been made if needed, which reinforced that Rule 10A was inapplicable on the recorded facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether Rule 10A was attracted on the facts, or whether the case fell under Rule 10.

Analysis: The processor could know only the processing cost at the time of clearance and could not know the eventual sale price. The proper officers were also aware that the relevant information was not then available, and provisional assessment could have been made if necessary. On these facts, there was no deliberate suppression of information by the processor at the time of clearance, so the conditions for applying Rule 10A were not made out.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and Rule 10A was held inapplicable; the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

---