Limitation in excise demand fails where classification was disclosed and no suppression justified the extended period.

The demand was held time-barred because the extended limitation period could not be invoked without evidence of suppression, misstatement, or concealment. Classification lists had been filed and approved repeatedly, the product description and technical particulars were disclosed, and the department delayed issuing the show cause notice for several years without sharing the test result. On those facts, the approved classification and departmental awareness of the manufacturing process negatived any deliberate non-disclosure, so the proviso to Section 11A did not apply and the longer limitation period was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked in the absence of suppression or mis-declaration.

Analysis: The classification lists had been filed and approved from time to time, the product description and technical particulars had been disclosed, and the department had taken several years to issue the show cause notice without furnishing the test result during that period. In these circumstances, the material on record did not justify a finding of deliberate suppression, mis-statement, or concealment of facts so as to attract the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A. The approved classification and the department's awareness of the manufacturing process negatived the basis for invoking the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period was not available to the department.

---