Extended limitation in excise cannot be invoked without wilful suppression; declarations and prior proceedings defeated the demand.

The extended period of limitation under central excise law could not be invoked absent tangible material showing wilful suppression of facts. The assessee had filed classification declarations and RT-12 returns describing the goods and claiming exemption, and earlier proceedings had already put the Department on notice about the nature of the goods manufactured and cleared. A later technical report and the subsequent resale of the goods by buyers were insufficient to establish concealment. The proviso to Section 11A therefore did not apply, and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no suppression of facts so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Analysis: The appellants had been filing classification declarations and RT-12 returns describing the goods as hubs for animal driven vehicles and claiming exemption. The record also showed earlier proceedings relating to the same goods, from which the Department was aware of the nature of the goods manufactured and cleared. The mere reliance on a later technical report or on the subsequent resale of the goods by buyers could not establish suppression by the appellants. In the absence of any tangible material showing wilful concealment, the proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked.

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

---