Wilful suppression and limitation in duty demand fail where no disclosure duty existed and excisability was genuinely disputed.

A demand for duty was held time-barred because the material did not establish wilful suppression or misstatement of facts. The product had been declared in the classification form as non-excisable, and there was no requirement at that stage to disclose the percentage content of ethyl alcohol. The dispute on excisability was itself under consideration, and the assessee relied on prior tribunal authority supporting its position. On those facts, the finding of suppression could not be sustained, so the extended limitation period was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation in the absence of wilful suppression or misstatement of facts.

Analysis: The product was declared in the classification form as non-excisable, and there was no requirement to furnish the percentage content of ethyl alcohol at that stage. The material placed did not justify an inference of wilful suppression against the assessee, particularly when the dispute on excisability itself was under consideration and the assessee relied on prior tribunal authority supporting its stand.

Conclusion: The finding of suppression could not be sustained, and the demand of duty was held to be time-barred.

---