Extended limitation cannot rest on suppression where tariff classification was ascertainable from the statute itself.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked on the basis of suppression where the assessee did not separately state that knitted cotton fabrics fell under Chapter 60. The omission was not suppression with intent to evade duty because Chapter 60 classification was ascertainable from the tariff itself, and departmental officers could have verified it from the statutory scheme. The demand was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A could be invoked on the ground of suppression where the assessee did not indicate that the knitted cotton fabrics fell under Chapter 60.

Analysis: The notice alleged suppression because the classification list described the goods as textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics and referred to Chapter Heading 59.03, while the Department contended that the base fabrics were classifiable under Chapter 60 and therefore outside the claimed exemption. The omission to state the classification of knitted cotton fabrics under Chapter 60 could not amount to suppression with intent to evade duty, since knitted cotton fabrics are classifiable under Chapter 60 as a basic tariff position and the departmental officers could have ascertained that classification from the tariff itself.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was time-barred.

---