Modvat declaration omission did not prove suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

Non-filing of a prescribed Modvat declaration for certain inputs, by itself, did not amount to suppression of facts where the department already had access to RT-12 returns, RG 23A extracts and duty-paid documents. The Tribunal found no concealment that prevented timely knowledge of the relevant facts, and mere omission to file a declaration was insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period. The demand for reversal of Modvat credit and penalty was therefore held time-barred, and the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for reversal of Modvat credit and penalty was barred by limitation on the ground that non-filing of declaration amounted to suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellant had not filed the prescribed declaration for certain inputs, but the record showed that the department had access to the relevant RT-12 returns, RG 23A extracts and duty-paid documents. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order itself did not establish any concealment that prevented the department from knowing the facts in time. The cited decisions on Modvat declarations and limitation supported the view that mere omission to file a declaration, without proved suppression of material facts, does not justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred. The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked, and the finding of suppression was rejected, in favour of the assessee.

---