Extended limitation under central excise fails where product disclosure was consistent and suppression was not proved.

The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because wilful misdeclaration and suppression were not established. The product had been consistently disclosed as the disputed soap, relevant classification lists and price declarations were filed and approved, and the department had accepted the classification for a long period. A mere classification dispute, where the product description was disclosed, did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The demand for the period October 1995 to March 1997 was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty for the period October 1995 to March 1997 was barred by limitation on the ground that the ingredients necessary to invoke the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not established.

Analysis: The show cause notice proceeded on allegations of wilful misdeclaration and suppression, but the record showed that the product was consistently declared as the disputed soap, the classification lists and price declarations had been filed and approved, the product was marketed as soap, and the department had accepted the same classification for a long period. The notice itself acknowledged the essential ingredient of the product, and the alleged suppression relating to certain ingredients was not factually established. A mere dispute over classification, when the assessee had disclosed the product and its description, could not by itself amount to suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.

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

---