Excise duty limitation turned on lack of suppression, and the extended period was rejected against the assessee.

Demand for excise duty was held time-barred because the department could not establish wilful suppression of facts or misdeclaration to justify the extended limitation period. The assessee had disclosed the manufacturing process, use of resins, and the nature of the final product in correspondence, classification lists, and earlier departmental proceedings, while the department itself had conducted visits, searches, and prior proceedings during the relevant period. In that factual setting, the show cause notice did not support invocation of the extended period, so the demand for the disputed period could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation on the ground that the department had failed to establish suppression of facts or misdeclaration so as to justify invocation of the extended period under the excise law.

Analysis: The appellants had, on the record, disclosed the nature of their manufacturing process, the use of resins, and the character of the final product in correspondence, classification lists, and earlier departmental proceedings. The department had carried out visits, searches, and even initiated earlier proceedings during the relevant period. In that background, the show cause notice did not clearly establish wilful suppression or misrepresentation. The department therefore failed to show that the extended limitation period could be invoked for the demand covering the disputed period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the invocation of the extended period was rejected, which was in favour of the assessee.

---