Suppression of facts in excise limitation fails where brand use was disclosed through statutory records and returns.

Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the Department had already been informed of the brand name through classification lists, gate passes, sale invoices and RT-12 returns. On those facts, the mere failure to separately intimate use of the same brand name for another pump did not amount to suppression of facts. The duty demand was therefore time-barred and could not be sustained on the basis of alleged suppression.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellants had informed the Department about use of the brand name and had reflected it in classification lists, gate passes, sale invoices and RT-12 returns. The mere omission to specifically intimate use of the same brand name in relation to another pump could not, on these facts, amount to suppression warranting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the duty demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department has been made aware of the use and ownership of a brand name through statutory filings and related records, a later demand cannot be sustained on the basis of alleged suppression merely because one product variant was not separately disclosed.

---