Suppression of facts in excise matters defeats limitation where disclosure is not made to the competent authority.

Wilful failure to furnish information to the proper excise authority, together with non-compliance with the prescribed licensing and declaration procedure, amounted to suppression of facts. A letter sent only to a field officer was not valid disclosure to the competent authority, and the assessee's commencement of production without the required declaration supported that finding. The earlier view that there was no concealment was erroneous in law, so the demand was not time-barred and the Revenue succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether wilful non-furnishing of information and failure to obtain a Central Excise licence constituted suppression of facts, so as to prevent the demand from being time-barred.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the assessee had effectively disclosed the relevant facts to the proper excise authority and whether the letter sent to a field officer could amount to disclosure to the competent officer. The Court also noted that the assessee had commenced production, obtained SSI registration later, and did not file the prescribed declaration claiming exemption. On those facts, the information supplied was held not to be a valid disclosure to the authority competent to deal with the matter, and the earlier finding that there was no concealment was found to be erroneous in law.

Conclusion: The omission to furnish proper information and to follow the prescribed licensing or declaration procedure amounted to suppression of facts. The demand was therefore not barred by limitation, and the answer was in favour of the Revenue.

---