Extended limitation cannot rest on suppression where cotton waste values were disclosed in balance-sheets and private accounts.

Disclosure of the production and sale value of cotton waste in balance-sheets and private accounts prevented the removal from being characterised as clandestine. Because the record reflected the relevant value and there were no specific allegations or proof of suppression of facts, the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation. The larger limitation period was therefore invalidly applied, and the demand failed on limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts when the production and sale value of cotton waste were reflected in the balance-sheets and private accounts.

Analysis: The dispute turned principally on limitation, not on the underlying duty liability. The record showed that the value of cotton waste was disclosed in the respective balance-sheets and private accounts. In those circumstances, the removal could not be characterised as clandestine. In the absence of specific allegations and proof of suppression of facts, the Department was not justified in invoking the larger period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was invalid and the demand could not be sustained on limitation.

---