Suppression and extended limitation fail where declarations disclosed steel forgings and no real duty benefit arose from the description.

Disclosure in declarations and correspondence showed the nature of the steel forgings and their source, so the use of the description "intermediate products" did not amount to deliberate suppression. Because the goods were stated to be exempt under Notification No. 208/83 and the description did not confer any real duty advantage, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty failed. The extended period of limitation was therefore not available, and the demand and penalty could not be sustained against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation of suppression in relation to Modvat credit on steel forgings.

Analysis: The declarations and correspondence showed disclosure of the nature of the forgings and the source from which they were procured. The mere description of steel forgings as intermediate products did not, in the facts of the case, establish any deliberate attempt to evade duty. The goods were also stated to have been exempted from duty under Notification No. 208/83, and the wrong description did not confer any real benefit so as to sustain the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty under the limitation provision.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not attracted and the demand and penalty could not be sustained against the assessee.

---