Extended limitation for suppression upheld, with limited remand ordered for fresh valuation and quantification of duty.

Extended limitation was held invocable where the manufacturer suppressed material facts about other manufacturing units while claiming small scale exemption based on aggregate clearances from all factories; the plea of bona fide belief failed, and the absence of the exact words "wilful suppression" did not prevent confirmation of duty and penalty. The valuation of excisable goods, however, was not finally settled for quantification purposes, so the matter was remanded for fresh hearing on the limited valuation points and reassessment of assessable value under Section 4 before recalculating duty and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for confirming the duty demand and penalty on the ground of suppression of facts; (ii) whether the matter required remand for re-determination of the value of excisable goods for computation of duty and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for confirming the duty demand and penalty on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellants had not filed the required declaration for the earlier period and, even after claiming the small scale exemption, had represented that they had no other manufacturing unit in India. The exemption notifications conditioned eligibility on the aggregate value of clearances from all factories of the manufacturer during the preceding financial year. On the facts, the Court found that the appellants had suppressed material particulars relating to the clearances of their other units and that the plea of bona fide belief could not succeed. The show cause notice and the findings supported invocation of the extended period, and the absence of a specific use of the words "wilful suppression" did not defeat the demand.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked and the duty demand and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for re-determination of the value of excisable goods for computation of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The valuation question had not been finally determined in accordance with Section 4 for the limited purpose of computing the recoverable duty and the consequential penalty. The Court held that the Collector had to re-hear the parties on the specific valuation grounds permitted to be raised, after granting personal hearing, so that the assessable value could be properly worked out in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh determination of valuation on the specified limited points.

Final Conclusion: The substantive findings on suppression, duty liability, and penalty were affirmed, but the quantification of duty and penalty was sent back for reconsideration on the valuation issues alone.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exemption depends on aggregate clearances of all factories of the manufacturer, suppression of material facts about other units justifies invocation of the extended period, and a limited remand may still be ordered for proper valuation and quantification.

---