Extended limitation in central excise unavailable absent suppression or intent to evade; demand confined to the normal period.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable where the record showed no deliberate suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty. The assessee paid duty after the departmental officers pointed out the position, and the Department was already aware of the clearances but delayed issuing the show cause notice. On that material, the demand was confined to the normal period, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to the Revenue for demanding duty on hydrogen gas cleared without payment after Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force.

Analysis: The finding on limitation was upheld because the record showed no deliberate suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, fraud, or contravention of rules with intent to evade duty. The assessee began paying duty once the departmental officers pointed out the position, and the Department was aware of the activity yet delayed issuance of the show cause notice. The Commissioner's view that the assessee could not be faulted for the Department's delay was supported by the material on record and the time-bar precedents relied upon.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the duty demand was confined to the normal period; the Revenue's challenge failed.

---