Extended limitation fails without suppression where invoices and RT-12 returns disclosed the disputed collection.

Extended limitation was not available where the alleged suppression was negated by disclosure of the relevant collection in invoices and monthly RT-12 returns, even though it was omitted from price lists. The bona fide belief that testing charges collected towards stamping under State law were not includible in assessable value further showed absence of wilful suppression or intent to evade duty. On those facts, the show cause notice was held barred by limitation and the Department could not invoke the extended period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period could not be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The charge of suppression failed because the relevant collection was reflected in the invoices filed with the monthly RT-12 returns, even though it was not shown in the price lists. The appellant's belief that the testing charge collected towards stamping under the State law was not includible in assessable value was found to be bona fide, and the facts did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was barred by limitation and the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. The appeal was allowed on this ground.

---