Extended period for duty demand requires wilful suppression or intent to evade, not a bona fide legal mistake.

The extended period under Rule 57-I(1) is available only on wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; it cannot be invoked where the assessee acts under a genuine bona fide belief or bona fide mistake. The Tribunal found that the assessee could reasonably view the processes as manufacture, given uncertainty in the law and conflicting decisions on similar processes, and therefore no intent to evade duty was shown. The declaration filed under Rule 57G was treated as part of the same suppression-and-intent inquiry. On that basis, invocation of the extended period was unjustified and the departmental application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period under Rule 57-I(1) could be invoked in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the assessee could bona fide take the view that the processes undertaken amounted to manufacture, having regard to the uncertainty in the law and differing decisions on similar processes. On that basis, it found no intention to evade duty. The settled legal position applied was that the extended period becomes available only when there is wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and not where the assessee acts under a genuine mistake or bona fide belief. The discussion on the declaration filed under Rule 57G was treated as involving this same question of suppression and intent.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the departmental application failed.

---