Limitation bar on excise demand applied where there was no suppression or wilful intent to evade duty.

The Tribunal held that the duty demand was prima facie barred by limitation because the Revenue was already aware that the parts and components arose during manufacture of railway wagons, and the omission to file the declaration under Rule 173B was not shown to be mala fide or intended to evade duty. In the absence of suppression of facts or wilful default, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable at least at the prima facie stage, and unconditional stay was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was prima facie barred by limitation so as to justify unconditional stay.

Analysis: The demand related to parts and components manufactured during the period before exemption under Notification No. 88/93-C.E. was granted. The Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware that such parts came into existence in the course of manufacture of railway wagons, and there was nothing to show that non-filing of the declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mala fide or accompanied by an intent to evade duty. In the absence of suppression or any indication of wilful default, the longer limitation period was held inapplicable, at least prima facie.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be prima facie barred by limitation, and unconditional stay was granted in favour of the assessee.

---