As per case facts, the appellant, a rubber profile manufacturer, classified their product under a nil-duty subheading. The Revenue reclassified it, arguing "further working" operations, and demanded duty for an ... extended period. The Commissioner discharged the notice, but CEGAT invoked the extended limitation period, remanding the case. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was applicable, particularly if there was "suppression of facts" by the appellant. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled CEGAT unjustified in finding "suppression of facts." The Court noted the department inspected products, knew manufacturing processes including post-forming details from a submitted flow-chart, and approved classification lists. Emphasizing mere non-disclosure isn't willful suppression, the Court held the extended limitation period inapplicable. The duty demand was restricted to the normal six-month period, setting aside CEGAT's order, and restoring the Commissioner's initial decision.