No suppression of facts defeats extended limitation and penalty where the assessee had disclosed the classification and exemption claim.

Repeated disclosure of the classification adopted for wet wipes and the exemption claim, together with audit and departmental scrutiny, supported the Tribunal's factual finding of no suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not sustainable, and the associated penalty also failed because it rested on the same absence of suppression. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose from these fact-based findings and upheld the Tribunal's conclusion.

---

---

Issues: Whether no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding that there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, and consequently the extended period of limitation and the penalty were not sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had repeatedly intimated the Department about the classification adopted for wet wipes and the claim of exemption, and the records also showed that the matter had been under audit and scrutiny. On these facts, the Tribunal's finding that there was no suppression with intent to evade duty was a finding of fact based on contemporaneous correspondence and departmental awareness. In such circumstances, invocation of the extended period of limitation could not be sustained, and the associated penalty could not survive on the same footing.

Conclusion: The finding that the extended period was not available for want of suppression was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration; the appeal failed.

---