Extended limitation under excise law requires suppression with intent to evade duty; disclosure of available price data defeats it.

Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 was held unavailable where the assessee had disclosed the price data supplied by its customer in the filed price list and had no knowledge of the customer's separate arrangement with the upstream supplier, including any price escalation clause. On those facts, there was no suppression of material facts or deliberate concealment with intent to evade duty, so the longer period could not be invoked and the demand for the extended period could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The appellants disclosed the price data supplied by their customer in the price list filed by them. The customer's arrangement with the upstream supplier, including the price escalation clause, was not within the appellants' knowledge. On these facts, the appellants could not be said to have suppressed material facts or acted with intent to evade duty. The foundation for applying the longer period therefore failed.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand raised for the extended period could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 requires suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, and it cannot be invoked where the assessee has disclosed the information available to it without deliberate concealment.

---