Extended limitation for alleged suppression fails where glass rod manufacture was known in trade and no material suppression was shown.

The dispute concerned whether a customs/excise demand could be sustained beyond the normal limitation period by invoking the extended period under Section 11A on the allegation of suppression of facts relating to the manufacture of glass rods and use of an exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that the manufacture process was well known in the trade and that the Department could not establish suppression or misstatement of material facts on the record. As a result, the extended limitation period was held unavailable, the demand was treated as time-barred, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts in relation to the manufacture of glass rods and availment of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The demand related to a past period and had been raised by invoking the extended limitation period. The decisive question was whether the assessee had suppressed the process of manufacture or misstated material facts so as to justify the extended period. The Tribunal accepted that the process of manufacture of glass rods was well known in the trade and that the Department could not attribute suppression on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was time-barred. The appeal by the Revenue failed.

---