Extended limitation in central excise fails where disclosure was made and no suppression of facts was established.

Extended limitation for central excise demand was unavailable because the department failed to establish deliberate suppression of facts. The assessee had filed the relevant registration, licence and constitutive documents, and departmental audit and scrutiny had been conducted over the years; the alleged non-disclosure of internal arrangement, management and inter-unit dealings was not treated as suppression justifying the extended period. As the demand was held time-barred, the related reversal of Modvat credit and penalties also could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty, reversal of Modvat credit and penalties were barred by limitation in the absence of a sustainable case of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the department had established deliberate non-disclosure warranting invocation of the extended period. It noted that the appellants had filed the relevant registration, licence and constitutive documents and that departmental audit and scrutiny had been carried out over the years. On the facts, the alleged non-disclosure of the internal arrangement, management and inter-unit dealings was not treated as suppression of facts so as to justify the extended limitation period. Since the demand itself was held to be time-barred, the connected directions for reversal of credit and the penalties also could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available, the demand was barred by time, and the duty demand, credit reversal and penalties were not sustainable against the assessee.

---