Extended limitation requires proof of suppression and intent to evade; classification dispute remanded for fresh determination.

Approved classification lists filed through departmental procedure did not, by themselves, justify invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the record showed no deliberate suppression of material facts or positive intent to evade duty; the demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period. The classification dispute concerning the circuit breaker combination and associated control panels was not finally decided, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh classification on the technical material, with liberty to seek expert opinion. The classification issue remained open on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the facts found; (ii) whether the classification of the goods required re-determination on remand while keeping the merits open.

Issue (i): whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the facts found.

Analysis: The approved classification lists had been filed and cleared through the departmental procedure. The record did not establish deliberate suppression of material facts or positive acts showing intent to evade duty. In the absence of such foundational facts, the longer limitation period could not be applied. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the duty demand was restricted to six months.

Issue (ii): whether the classification of the goods required re-determination on remand while keeping the merits open.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the nature of the circuit breaker combination and the role of the associated control panels, but the merits were not finally decided. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of classification by the original authority, with liberty to examine the technical material and, if necessary, obtain expert opinion. The question of classification was expressly left open in the remand proceedings.

Conclusion: The classification issue was remanded for re-determination and remained open.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the demand was confined to the normal limitation period, while the classification controversy was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved classification list, without proof of deliberate suppression of material facts and intent to evade duty, does not justify invocation of the extended limitation period; where the classification dispute remains unresolved on technical facts, the proper course is remand for fresh determination.

---