Suppression of facts and extended limitation under central excise fail where invoices already disclose the relevant price components.

Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where the notices did not allege suppression or wilful misstatement, or where the invoice records already disclosed the relevant price components and service charges. On those facts, the duty short payment was apparent from the documents and did not amount to suppression of facts. As a result, notices issued beyond the normal limitation period were not sustainable, and the limitation objection succeeded for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notices invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: In one appeal, the notice referred only to short levy and did not allege suppression or wilful misstatement. In the other, although suppression was alleged, the invoices disclosed the total price and the separately shown service charges; the alleged deductions were therefore apparent from the records. On these facts, the matter did not involve suppression, and any duty short payment could be addressed only within the normal period of limitation.

Conclusion: The notices issued beyond the normal period could not be sustained and the limitation objection succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere short payment of duty, when the relevant price components are disclosed in the invoices and the record, does not amount to suppression of facts so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---