Extended limitation under central excise cannot rest solely on omission to disclose another person's brand name in the classification list.

Non-disclosure of another person's brand name in a Central Excise classification list does not, by itself, justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. The analysis turns on Rule 173B: if the brand name was not a fact statutorily required to be declared, omission to mention it cannot amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. The earlier line of authority treats extended limitation as unavailable in the absence of a positive act of concealment or a specific legal duty to disclose the omitted fact.

---

---

Issues: Whether omission to declare the use of another person's brand name in the classification list can justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The question turned on whether Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules required disclosure of the brand name in the classification list, and whether non-disclosure of a fact not statutorily required to be declared could amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. The earlier line of authority held that, absent a positive act of concealment or a statutory duty to disclose the particular fact, the extended period could not be invoked merely because the brand name was not stated in the classification list.

Conclusion: Omission to declare the use of another person's brand name in the classification list does not, by itself, lead to application of the extended period of limitation.

---