Limitation bars excise demand where classification lists disclosed facts and no suppression with intent to evade duty was shown.

Limitation governed the dispute once classification had already been decided against the assessee. The department was held unable to invoke the extended period because the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts through classification lists and an exemption claim, so there was no suppression with intent to evade duty. Limitation was treated as a mixed question of law and fact that could be raised at any stage. As the demand was time-barred, the duty liability failed, and the consequential penalty also could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and whether the consequential penalty could survive once the demand failed on time bar.

Analysis: The issue on merits regarding classification was no longer open, as it had already been decided against the assessee. The only surviving question was limitation. The filing of classification lists and the claim of exemption were held to have placed the relevant facts before the department, and limitation was treated as a mixed question of law and fact that could be raised at any stage. In the facts of the case, the material necessary for assessment was not suppressed and the extended period was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the finding of limitation was in favour of the assessee. The penalty, being consequential to the demand, also could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the attendant penalty were set aside, and the appeals succeeded on the ground of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts through approved classification lists and claimed exemption under a stated belief, the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression with intent to evade duty; penalty dependent on such demand also fails.

---