Suppression of facts and extended limitation failed where disputed charges were disclosed in invoices with RT-12 returns.

Disclosure of disputed charges in invoices enclosed with RT-12 returns was treated as sufficient notice to the jurisdictional officer, so the allegation of suppression of material facts could not be sustained. In the absence of suppression, the extended limitation period under section 11A(1) was unavailable, and the central excise duty demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under section 11A(1) could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The recovery of the disputed charges had been disclosed to the department through invoices enclosed with the RT-12 returns. Once such information was available to the jurisdictional officer, the allegation that the short levy resulted from suppression of material facts could not be sustained. In the absence of suppression, the extended limitation period was not available.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable.

---