Extended period under excise law is limited by the relevant date; disclosure of facts defeats suppression for later demand.

Extended-period excise demand under Section 11A cannot survive beyond five years from the relevant date, and where periodic returns were due, that date is the last date for filing the return. On the stated facts, a 2003 show cause notice could sustain demand only for the limited period June 1998 to December 1998, not for the earlier or later period. Once the assessee disclosed clearances to the department, suppression could not be presumed for the subsequent period on the basis of earlier conduct. Personal penalty was also not made out against the authorised signatory, who was only a Deputy Manager in stores, so the penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice issued in 2003 could sustain demand of central excise duty for the period January 1994 to 1999-2000 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether penalty was imposable on the authorised signatory and manager stores.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice issued in 2003 could sustain demand of central excise duty for the period January 1994 to 1999-2000 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: For a non-payment demand, the normal period under Section 11A is one year from the relevant date, while the extended period of five years applies only where non-payment is attributable to fraud, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or similar conduct. Where periodic returns were required but not filed, the relevant date is the last date on which such return was due. On the admitted facts, the demand for the earlier period was beyond the statutory five-year span counted from the relevant date. After the department was informed of the clearances by the disclosure letter, the Revenue could not continue to invoke suppression for the subsequent period merely on the basis of the earlier conduct.

Conclusion: The demand was sustainable only for the limited period June 1998 to December 1998, and not for the earlier or later period covered by the notice.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was imposable on the authorised signatory and manager stores.

Analysis: The order held that the individual was only an authorised signatory and a Deputy Manager in the stores of the assessee. On that basis, the ingredients for personal penalty were not made out against him.

Conclusion: Penalty on the authorised signatory was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was interfered with in part, the demand was confined to a restricted period, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits within that limitation, and the personal penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the extended period can be invoked only for the statutory period counted from the relevant date, and once the assessee has disclosed the material facts to the department, suppression cannot be presumed for the later period.

---