Extended limitation in excise fails where bona fide classification belief and no proven suppression defeat allegations of duty evasion.

Extended limitation for duty demand requires positive suppression or a deliberate intent to evade; on the facts described, those ingredients were not made out. The assessee's declaration, the director's statement, and a departmental letter treating an identical product as classifiable under Chapter 39 supported a bona fide belief that the goods fell under Chapter 39 and qualified for exemption under Notification No. 53/88-Central Excise. Reliance on a test report relating to another unit's product was treated as an insufficient basis for settling classification, and the lack of timely investigative follow-up after the declaration further undermined the Revenue's case. The demand and penalties were therefore not sustainable on the ground of suppression or intent to evade duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the basis of alleged suppression and misstatement, or whether the assessee had a bona fide belief regarding classification sufficient to defeat such invocation.

Analysis: The show cause notice covered a period beyond the normal limitation period, so the demand could survive only if there was positive suppression or a deliberate act intended to evade duty. The declaration filed by the assessee, the statement of its director, and the departmental letter treating an identical product as classifiable under Chapter 39 supported the assessee's bona fide belief that the goods fell under Chapter 39 and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/88-Central Excise. The reliance placed on a test report of another unit's product was not accepted as a proper basis to settle classification, and the absence of any timely investigative follow-up after filing of the declaration weighed against the Revenue. In these circumstances, the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were not established.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the demand of duty and penalties could not be sustained on the ground of suppression or intent to evade duty.

---