Extended limitation under central excise law requires more than a notified change in legal status; suppression and intent to evade were not established.

A mere change in the legal status of an undertaking, when its manufacturing activity remains unchanged and the change is publicly notified in the Official Gazette, does not by itself amount to suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. On those facts, the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not established, so the extended limitation period was not available and the demand was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the allegation of suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessee's manufacturing activity continued unchanged even after the change in its constitutional status, and the alteration in status was notified through the Official Gazette. On these facts, the non-payment of duty could not be treated as deliberate suppression with a pre-planned intention to evade duty. The ingredients necessary for invoking the extended limitation period were therefore not established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere change in the legal status of an undertaking, especially when publicly notified, does not by itself amount to suppression of facts or establish intent to evade duty for invoking the extended limitation period under central excise law.

---