Extended limitation under excise law requires specific grounds; bare allegations of evasion and procedural breach were insufficient.

Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was not available where the departmental appeal did not displace the finding that the assessee had informed the department of the procedure followed. Allegations of intent to evade duty and non-compliance with Rule 173H were insufficient on their own, because intent is only one ingredient for invoking the extended period. The appeal also failed to identify any specific material wrongly relied upon or any particular matter ignored by the adjudicating authority. A bare assertion that all grounds in the show cause notice should have been considered was not enough under Section 35B, so no interference with the order dropping the proceedings was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A could be invoked, and whether the departmental appeal disclosed any specific error in the order dropping the proceedings.

Analysis: The departmental grounds centered on alleged intent to evade duty and alleged non-compliance with Rule 173H, but they did not directly address the Collector's finding that the assessee had informed the department of the procedure followed. The intention to evade duty is relevant only as one ingredient for applying the extended limitation period, and by itself does not displace a finding that the department was kept informed. The appeal also failed to identify which material was wrongly relied upon or which specific matters had been ignored, and a bare assertion that all grounds in the show cause notice should have been considered was held to be insufficient under Section 35B.

Conclusion: The extended period was not shown to be available, and no ground for interference with the order dropping the proceedings was made out; the decision was in favour of the assessee.

---