Extended limitation under Central Excise law requires proven suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Extended limitation under Central Excise law could not be invoked because the department failed to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The notice alleged concealment of the true source of inputs and the manner of procurement of documents, but the material on record did not support deliberate suppression. The reasoning also notes inconsistency between the departmental case in the show cause notice and the impugned order, and holds that the discrepancy relied upon was insufficient to justify extension of time. The demand was therefore treated as time-barred and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of suppression of facts so as to justify invocation of the extended period under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The only substantive controversy decided was limitation. The notice alleged that the appellant had suppressed the real source of receipt of inputs and the manner in which documents were procured. On the facts recorded, the discrepancy relied upon by the department did not establish deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. The reasoning also notes that the departmental version was not consistent with the show cause notice and the impugned order, and that the material on record did not justify stretching the limitation period. The demand was therefore treated as beyond time.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not sustainable and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under excise law cannot be invoked in the absence of established suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---