Extended limitation under Central Excise law was unavailable where declaration disclosed manufacture and exemption claim, making the demand time-barred.

The declaration filed under Rule 174 disclosed the goods manufactured, the process undertaken and the claim to exemption, so the Department was aware of the activity and could have verified classification and exemption eligibility promptly. As concealment or suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty was not established, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The demand, raised for an earlier period without timely departmental action, was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could be invoked for the duty demand, in the light of the declaration filed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the exemption claimed under Notification No. 70/95-C.E.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee disclosed the products manufactured, the process undertaken, and the claim to exemption. The Department was aware of the manufacture of coated and uncoated micronised minerals, and any dispute on classification or eligibility to exemption could have been verified and acted upon promptly after the declaration was received. On these facts, concealment of the manufacturing process or suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The existence of other units was also not shown to have been withheld in a manner that would justify invocation of the extended period. The demand related to a period long before the show cause notice, and the Department had not taken timely remedial action.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred.

---