Limitation for central excise demand fails where facts were disclosed and no suppression or intent to evade duty was proved.

CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for a demand on misrolls, because the assessee had disclosed the relevant material facts in the RT-12 return and a classification declaration claiming Notification No. 67/95-C.E. The Tribunal found no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the appeal succeeded on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty on misrolls was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was invocable.

Analysis: The demand was raised for the period October 1997 to March 2000. The Tribunal found that the appellants had placed the material facts before the Department through the RT-12 return and a classification declaration claiming the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. in respect of misrolls captively consumed in the manufacture of iron and steel products. In these circumstances, the ingredients required for invoking the extended period, namely fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty, were not established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was held to be time-barred. The appeal was allowed on that ground.

---