Extended limitation fails where suppression is not proved and identical goods were already assessed on MRP basis.

The extended period of limitation under central excise law could not be invoked where the allegation of suppression was unsupported by evidence of deliberate evasion. The same assessee's other units had already been directed by departmental authorities to assess identical goods under MRP valuation under Section 4A, and that background weakened the claim that the Kolkata unit wilfully misapplied the valuation provision. A general assertion in the show cause notice was insufficient to prove suppression of facts. The demand for differential duty therefore could not be sustained on the extended period, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts for demanding differential central excise duty, where the goods had been assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A.

Analysis: The appeal was decided on limitation. The record showed that in respect of the same assessee's other units, the excise authorities at Chennai and Mumbai had directed assessment of the very same goods under Section 4A, and the Chennai adjudication had treated the bulk clearances as liable to MRP valuation. In this background, the allegation that the Kolkata unit deliberately suppressed facts or wilfully adopted Section 4A to evade duty was not supported by evidence. A general allegation in the show cause notice, without proof of deliberate suppression, was insufficient to justify the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same assessee's other units had been directed by departmental authorities to adopt MRP valuation under Section 4A, a mere allegation of suppression, without evidence of deliberate evasion, does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---