Concessional duty and limitation cannot be denied where a name change was duly reflected and disclosed to the Department.

A change in the assessee's name, when reflected in the small-scale industry registration certificate with effect from the relevant date and accompanied by no change in constitution or management, did not justify denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; the substantive requirement of valid registration was treated as satisfied. The Department's own amendment of the L-4 licence and finalisation of RT 12 returns in the new name supported that position. On limitation, disclosure of the name change and updated registration particulars to the Department meant there was no suppression or misstatement, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. despite the change in its name and the subsequent amendment of the small scale industry registration certificate; (ii) Whether the show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation was barred in the absence of suppression or misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. despite the change in its name and the subsequent amendment of the small scale industry registration certificate.

Analysis: The changed name had been incorporated in the registration certificate with effect from the relevant date, and the endorsement also reflected that the amendment operated from that date. The same identity of the company continued, with no change in constitution or management. The Department had also amended the L-4 licence and the returns had been finalised in the new name. A mere delay in formal incorporation of the amended name did not justify denial of the exemption when the substantive requirement of valid registration stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation was barred in the absence of suppression or misstatement.

Analysis: The change of name and the corresponding registration particulars had been brought to the notice of the Department, the Superintendent had incorporated the new name in the L-4 licence, and the RT 12 returns had been finalised accordingly. On these facts, there was no basis to allege suppression or misstatement so as to invoke the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption and the demand were unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded on merits as well as on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a change in the assessee's name is duly reflected in the registration record with retrospective effect and the Department has been informed of the change, exemption cannot be denied on a merely technical ground, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent suppression or misstatement.

---