Limitation and suppression of facts: disclosed records defeated extended-period demand under a mistaken concessional-duty belief.

Disclosure of classification and duty rate in monthly returns and export documents, together with departmental records reflecting the manner of clearance, showed no suppression of facts. The statutory amendment was already within the department's knowledge, and no contemporaneous objection was raised, so the assessee's belief that the concessional rate continued was treated as bona fide. On those facts, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demand was held time barred and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts, where the assessee paid concessional duty under a notification and continued doing so after amendment until the show cause notice was issued.

Analysis: The assessee had declared the classification and the rate of duty in its monthly returns and export documents, and the departmental records also reflected the manner of clearance. The change brought by the amending notification was a statutory amendment known to the department, yet no immediate action was taken and the audit also did not record any objection for the relevant period. On these facts, the assessee's belief that the concessional rate continued till the stated terminal date was treated as bona fide. Since all material facts were available on record and there was no suppression, the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time barred and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on limitation, and the duty demand confirmed by the lower authorities did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: When the relevant facts are disclosed in returns and other departmental records, mere payment of duty at an incorrect rate under a mistaken belief does not amount to suppression so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---