Extended limitation and suppression under excise law fail where bona fide belief and departmental awareness negate intent to evade duty.

Extended limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked absent suppression with intent to evade duty. The assessee's conversion process inevitably generated waste, the departmental officers were aware of the activity, and existing Tribunal decisions and trade notices supported the view that the waste was not dutiable. Mere non-filing of a classification list was held insufficient, by itself, to establish suppression. On these facts, the assessee's belief that the goods were not excisable was accepted as bona fide, so the demand raised beyond the normal period was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked on the ground of suppression despite the assessee's claim of bona fide belief regarding excisability.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the assessee had suppressed material facts with intent to evade duty so as to justify the extended limitation period. The record showed that waste arose inevitably in the course of conversion of tow to top, that departmental officers were aware of the process, and that Tribunal decisions and trade notices supported the assessee's understanding that such waste was not dutiable. Mere non-filing of a classification list, by itself, was treated as insufficient to establish suppression. On these facts, the assessee's belief that the goods were not excisable was accepted as bona fide, and the demand raised beyond the normal period could not be sustained.

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

---