Extended limitation under central excise law fails absent suppression when required disclosures were already made.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act does not apply where the assessee has disclosed clearance details and discount particulars in RT-12 returns and the disputed depot sale prices were not legally required to be reported. On those facts, omission to furnish post-clearance depot selling prices does not amount to suppression of facts, and the record must also show a wilful wrong statement or misdeclaration before the extended period can be invoked. The duty demand for 1986-87 clearances, raised in November 1989, was therefore treated as time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to the duty demand, and whether non-disclosure of depot sale prices and discount particulars amounted to suppression of facts.

Analysis: The duty demand related to clearances made in 1986 and 1987, while the notice was issued in November 1989. The assessee had submitted clearance details and discount particulars in RT 12 returns. The information regarding the prices at which goods were sold from depots after clearance on payment of duty was not legally required to be disclosed to the department. On that basis, the omission to furnish such information did not constitute suppression of facts, and there was no material to show a wilful wrong statement or misdeclaration.

Conclusion: The extended period was not applicable, and the finding that the demand was time-barred was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---