Extended limitation for suppression not available where classification disclosures were filed and similar prior proceedings had already been initiated.

A licensed, duty-paying assessee that regularly filed classification and price lists was held not to have suppressed material facts. Because an earlier notice on substantially similar allegations had already been issued, and prior proceedings on the brand-name issue had been withdrawn after a finding favourable to the assessee, the later notice did not justify use of the extended period of limitation. The demand therefore failed on limitation, as the Tribunal found no sufficient basis for alleging suppression to sustain extended limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was sustainable by invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The unit was a licensed, duty-paying assessee availing Modvat credit and had filed classification and price lists from time to time. An earlier notice on substantially similar allegations had already been issued and the earlier proceedings on the brand-name issue had been withdrawn after a finding favourable to the assessee. On the material before it, the Tribunal found that the later notice did not establish suppression of facts sufficient to justify recourse to the extended period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the demand failed on limitation.

---