Limitation and suppression in indirect tax disputes defeated extended-period demands where the same valuation issue was already on notice.

Repeated filing and approval of classification lists claiming exemption, together with sanctioned refund claims, prevented the department from invoking suppression to extend limitation. Because an earlier show cause notice had already raised the same valuation controversy, the later notice did not provide a valid basis for the extended period. On that footing, the demands were held time barred and set aside. The majority also found no need to remand the matter for fresh determination of the plant and machinery value, as the limitation issue was ative and disposed of the dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demands were barred by limitation and, consequently, whether the impugned orders could be sustained without remand.

Analysis: The majority view held that the appellants had been regularly filing classification lists claiming exemption, those lists had been approved, and refund claims had also been sanctioned by the department. In that backdrop, the department could not successfully invoke suppression to justify the extended period. Since the earlier show cause notice had already put the department on notice regarding the very same valuation controversy, the later notice did not establish a valid basis for extended limitation. On this reasoning, there was no necessity to remand the matter for fresh determination of plant and machinery value.

Conclusion: The demands were held to be time barred and were set aside, and the appeals succeeded.

---