Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression; exemption denied, but demand held time-barred for lack of intent to evade duty.

Manufacture from third-party steel sheets into commercially distinct Hamilton tubes did not satisfy the conditions for exempt job work, so Notification No. 119/75 was unavailable. The demand nevertheless failed on limitation because the record did not show deliberate or conscious suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; the absence of a classification list, by itself, was insufficient to justify the extended period. On those findings, the longer limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked and the demand was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/75 dated 30-4-1975 on the facts found; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/75 dated 30-4-1975 on the facts found.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured from steel sheets supplied by third parties, and the materials underwent substantial transformation into goods known in trade as Hamilton tubes. The claim that only incidental fastening or welding was done, and that the same article was returned, was not established. The conditions for treating the activity as exempt job work were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 119/75 was not available to the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A.

Analysis: The finding on the record did not support a deliberate or conscious suppression of facts. The absence of a classification list or related documents was not treated as sufficient, by itself, when the authority itself found lack of intent to evade duty and set aside the penalty on that basis. On those findings, the longer limitation could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the demand could not be sustained on limitation, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For invocation of the extended period of limitation, suppression of facts must involve a deliberate or conscious omission with intent to evade duty.

---