Extended limitation for duty demand failed where freight variation was not shown to involve suppression of facts.

A demand of duty based on variation in freight charges failed because the extended limitation period could not be invoked without suppression of facts. The appellants had prepared the price list on the basis of past freight expenditure, and the later shortfall arose in subsequent periods without evidence of manipulation, concealment, or any deliberate act to evade duty. A minor change in freight charges caused by future sale patterns and carriage arrangements was insufficient to establish suppression. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the assessee succeeded on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty arising from variation in freight charges against the claimed equalised freight abatement was barred by limitation, and whether the extended period could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellants had based the price list on past freight expenditure and had not furnished wrong or manipulated data. The subsequent shortfall in freight expenditure occurred in later periods and was not shown to have been anticipated or engineered by the appellants. No subterfuge or deliberate act to evade duty was established. A minor variation in freight charges, arising from future sale pattern and carriage arrangements, could not by itself amount to suppression of facts or justify invocation of the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the demand could not be sustained on limitation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent variation in freight expenditure, not shown to be manipulated or deliberately concealed, does not constitute suppression of facts so as to attract the extended period of limitation.

---