Limitation under Central Excise law failed where disclosure to the department defeated suppression and barred extended-period duty demand.

Duty demand was held time barred under Section 11A because the extended period could not be invoked without suppression of facts. The classification lists, correspondence and audit material showed that body building on fire fighting vehicles had been disclosed to the department from the beginning, and that the department knew the appellants were availing exemption and not paying duty on equipment used in manufacture. In the absence of suppression, the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable, so the demand issued beyond the normal six-month period failed on limitation without examination of the merits.

---

---

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

Analysis: The classification lists and correspondence showed that the activity of body building on fire fighting vehicles was disclosed to the department from the beginning. The revised classification list, the letter to the Assistant Collector, and the audit material demonstrated that the department was aware that the appellants were availing exemption and that duty had not been paid on the equipments used in the manufacture of the vehicles. In these circumstances, there was no basis to allege suppression of facts. The proviso to Section 11A could not therefore be invoked, and the demand, being beyond the normal six-month period, was time barred.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation and the appeal was allowed on the time-limit issue without going into the merits.

---