Extended limitation in excise demands fails where facts were disclosed and no suppression or misstatement is proved.

Duty demand was confined to the normal six-month limitation period because the record showed disclosure of the relevant facts to the department. The assessee had obtained a Central Excise licence, furnished particulars of the goods and turnover, and sought departmental guidance, which negatived any allegation of concealment or deliberate misstatement. A delay in filing the classification list was only a procedural lapse and did not by itself establish suppression. As the longer limitation period depended on proof of suppression or misstatement, and that foundation was absent, the extended limitation provision was not attracted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty could be confined to six months under the extended limitation provision on the ground that there was no suppression or misstatement of facts, despite delay in filing the classification list and alleged contravention of the excise procedural rules.

Analysis: The respondents had obtained a Central Excise licence, had earlier furnished full particulars of the goods manufactured and the turnover, and had addressed a letter to the department seeking guidance. These circumstances showed disclosure of the relevant facts to the department. Although there was a procedural lapse in not filing the classification list in time, the material on record did not support an allegation of concealment or deliberate misstatement. In such circumstances, the longer limitation period was not attracted.

Conclusion: The charge of suppression or misstatement failed, and the demand of duty was rightly restricted to six months under the limitation provision.

---