Extended limitation fails where earlier notice on the same facts already put the Department on knowledge of the dispute.

Where the Department had already initiated proceedings on the same facts for an earlier period, a later notice for the subsequent period could not validly invoke the extended period of limitation on the basis of suppression. The prior notice showed that the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge, so the same factual foundation could not support a fresh allegation of suppression for the later period. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred, and the connected interest and penalties were also set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for the period October 2015 to June 2017 could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation when earlier proceedings on the same facts had already been initiated for an earlier period.

Analysis: The prior show cause notice for an earlier period showed that the relevant facts were already within the Department's knowledge. On the same factual foundation, the subsequent notice for the present period was issued by invoking the extended period. In such circumstances, suppression of facts could not be inferred merely because a later period was covered, and the limitation defence succeeded.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, along with the connected interest and penalties, was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department is already aware of the relevant facts from an earlier notice on the same issue, a subsequent notice for a later period cannot validly invoke the extended period of limitation on the basis of suppression of facts.

---