Extended limitation for excise duty demands requires proven suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, not mere declaration dispute.

Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked for captive-consumption duty demands unless the record shows suppression of facts or deliberate intent to evade duty. The assessee's declarations, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate, reflected adoption of a 10% profit margin, and the material did not establish mis-declaration or contumacious conduct. Because the goods were not sold, the assessee could not be said to know the actual profit that would have been earned. In the absence of clear findings of suppression or fraud, the extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked for the demand relating to duty on captively consumed goods.

Analysis: The declarations filed by the assessee, supported by the Chartered Accountant's certificate, showed adoption of 10% profit normally earned on sale of such goods. The material on record did not establish a mis-declaration or suppression of facts, because the goods were not sold and the assessee could not be said to know the actual profit that would have been earned on them. The demand had been raised on the premise that the profit margin in the declaration was not the actual gross profit of the previous year, but there was no finding of contumacious conduct or intention to defraud. In the absence of such foundational facts, the extended period was not available.

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

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period under Section 11A cannot be invoked unless there is suppression of facts or deliberate intent to evade duty, supported by clear findings of contumacious conduct.

---