IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.50 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - III ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Raymond Limited ..Respondent. Mr.R.V. Desai with Mr.A.S. Rao, Mr.A.D. Kango for the Appellant. Mr.V. Sridharan with Mr.Prakash Shah, Mr.Jitu Motwani i/by PDS Legal for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel on both the sides. 2. The real question which has been considered by the tribunal is that was the revenue entitled to the extended period of limitation which becomes available to the authorities only in case the assessee is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or willful suppression. The tribunal has held that in March 1996 price declaration was filed by the assessee in respect of the tops manufactured by the assessee under Rule 6b(1) and the assessee continued to pay the duty on the tops cleared to other factories. But no demand was made in terms of Rule 6B(2) in relation to the tops. The tribunal has held that the fact that the tops were being transferred to other factories was not suppressed. The price-list was also disclosed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or misleading and, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not available. 3. We find, after hearing both the sides, that no case is made out for extended period of limitation by way of this appeal. In view of the previous proceedings and the declaration made by the assessee, no question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, rejected. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.