Extended limitation cannot rest on suppression where declarations are complete and relevant facts were available to both sides.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) could not be invoked absent evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement to evade duty. The assessee's declaration was found complete, and the Department was expected to verify classification, facts and exemption eligibility before granting declarant status. As the relevant facts were available to both sides and no material showed concealment of information, mere failure to investigate further did not amount to suppression. Applying the earlier precedent on suppression and limitation, the demand was not sustainable to the extent it depended on the extended period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) could be invoked on the footing that the assessee had wilfully suppressed material facts and mis-stated the nature of the products to evade duty.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee was found to be complete in all respects, and the Department was expected to verify the correctness of the facts, classification and eligibility to exemption before granting declarant status. On the record, there was no material showing that any information was withheld from the Department which could not have been obtained at the relevant time. The principle applied was that where the relevant facts were known to both sides, mere failure to act or to investigate further does not amount to suppression. The earlier decision relied upon by the adjudicating authority was treated as governing the question of suppression and limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invokable and the demand could not be sustained to that extent.

---