Extended limitation under central excise law fails where disclosed contracts negate suppression of facts and the demand is time-barred.

Excise authorities could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on an allegation of suppression of facts where the contracts for sale of computers had been disclosed and they themselves showed the right to collect maintenance charges during the warranty period. The relevant facts were already available to the department and would have emerged on due application of mind, so suppression was not established. The longer limitation period was therefore unavailable and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Excise authorities were entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The contracts for sale of the computers had been disclosed by the appellants, and those contracts themselves showed the entitlement to collect maintenance charges during the warranty period. On these facts, there was no suppression on the part of the appellants. Since the relevant facts were already available to the Excise authorities and would have been revealed on due application of mind, the longer limitation period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was illegal and the demand was time-barred.

---