Extended limitation unavailable where suppression of facts lacks mala fide intention in excise duty demand

Extended limitation for an excise duty demand cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts is shown with mala fide intention. On the stated facts, the record did not establish such suppression in relation to bath powder manufacture, so the ordinary six-month limitation period applied. The duty demand was therefore confined to the period immediately preceding the notice, and the extended period was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the duty demand on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The demand related to excise duty on bath powder for an earlier period, but the notice was issued more than six months after the relevant commencement of manufacture. The Court found that the material on record did not establish suppression with any mala fide intention. In the absence of such conduct, the ordinary limitation period alone could govern the demand.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demand was confined to the six months preceding the notice.

---