Limitation for central excise demand fails where full disclosure defeats suppression and the extended period cannot be invoked.

Central excise duty demand cannot be raised under the extended limitation period without suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. Where the goods were consistently disclosed in classification lists and declarations as technical grade bulk drugs, and those declarations were approved from time to time, the full disclosure negated the statutory ingredients for invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the connected penalty could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The products were consistently described in the classification lists and classification declarations as technical grade bulk drugs, and those declarations were approved from time to time. The record showed full disclosure of the nature of the goods throughout the relevant period. In these circumstances, the ingredients necessary to invoke the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act were not made out. Since the demand itself was time-barred, the connected penalty could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue.

---