Extended limitation for excise duty demands failed where disclosed charges negated suppression and the notices were time-barred.

Show cause notices issued beyond six months were sustainable only if the extended limitation period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied. Alleged suppression of extra charges, including special packing, handling, freight, insurance and service charges, was rejected because the records showed these charges had been disclosed in separate letters to the Assistant Collector. On those facts, there was full disclosure and no material to establish suppression with intent to evade duty, so the notices were time-barred and the finding for the assessee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notices were barred by limitation and whether suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was made out so as to justify invocation of the extended period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The notices were issued beyond six months from the relevant periods and could survive only if the extended limitation applied. The Department relied on alleged suppression of extra charges such as special packing, handling, freight, insurance and service charges, but the records showed that these charges had been disclosed in separate letters addressed to the Assistant Collector. On the facts, there was full disclosure and no material to support suppression with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression was not established and the notices were time-barred. The finding in favour of the assessee was upheld.

---