Limitation on indirect tax demand turns on disclosure in price lists and rejection of suppression allegations.

Disclosure of tooling and development charges in the price list, together with reference to the purchase order, was sufficient to put the department on notice. On those facts, the allegation of suppression could not be sustained because the officer was expected to examine the classification and price lists and make enquiries before approving them. The demand was therefore barred by limitation, the Revenue's relied-on precedent was treated as inapplicable, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no suppression of facts by the assessee in relation to the tooling and development charges.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed in the price list that certain development and tooling charges were collected, and the reference to the purchase order was sufficient to put the department on notice. The officer was expected to examine the classification and price lists and make necessary enquiries before approving them. The later allegation of suppression could not be sustained on these facts, and the precedent relied upon by the Revenue was held to be inapplicable.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation, and the allegation of suppression was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the lower orders were set aside, and consequential relief was directed.

---