Extended limitation cannot apply without suppression or misrepresentation; surviving excise demand and penalty were remanded for fresh determination.

Where the computation basis and supporting material were fully disclosed to the department, the extended period of limitation for excise duty could not be invoked absent suppression or misrepresentation, and the demand beyond the normal limitation period was time-barred. Because only the surviving demand within limitation remained, the duty liability for that period had to be recalculated by the jurisdictional Commissioner, and the penalty issue was left open for fresh consideration. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo determination of the permissible duty demand and connected penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand beyond the statutory limitation period could be sustained in the absence of suppression or misrepresentation; (ii) whether the matter required remand for recalculation of duty within the permissible period and reconsideration of penalty.

Issue (i): whether the demand beyond the statutory limitation period could be sustained in the absence of suppression or misrepresentation.

Analysis: The computation method and supporting data were already disclosed to the department through repeated correspondence and certificates. The record did not show any deliberate concealment, misrepresentation, or ulterior motive. In these circumstances, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand could stand only within the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand for the period beyond the statutory limitation was barred and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the matter required remand for recalculation of duty within the permissible period and reconsideration of penalty.

Analysis: Since only the demand within limitation survived, the exact duty liability for that period had to be determined afresh by the jurisdictional Commissioner. The question of penalty was also left open to be decided in the de novo exercise.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo determination of the surviving duty demand and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the larger demand was held time-barred, while the remaining duty liability and connected penalty issues were sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts and computation basis are fully disclosed to the department, the extended period of limitation for excise duty cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or misrepresentation.

---