Extended limitation cannot be invoked for job-work galvanization when the Department already knew the relevant facts.

Central excise duty demand on galvanization undertaken on a job-work basis was held time-barred because the Department had already been aware of the activity through earlier proceedings and audits. Later audit action relied on the same facts, so suppression of facts could not be alleged to invoke the extended limitation period for recovery. The dispute was confined to limitation, as the assessee did not contest the merits. The extended period was therefore unavailable and the demand failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty on galvanization undertaken on job-work basis was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The activity had been in dispute for years and had already been within the Department's knowledge through earlier proceedings and audits. The later audit proceedings again examined the same activity and raised objections on the basis of the same set of facts. In these circumstances, suppression of facts could not be alleged so as to invoke the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty. The appellant did not contest the merits, and the dispute was confined to limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not applicable; the assessee succeeded on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department is already aware of the relevant activity and later action is taken on the same facts, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked on a plea of suppression.

---