Extended limitation under excise law fails where classification lists disclose material facts and no suppression is shown.

Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the material facts through approved classification lists showing coal gas at nil duty and had filed a further classification list in March 1997. On that record, there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the demand for the relevant period was time-barred. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the merits were not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty were barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The appellants had filed classification lists showing manufacture of coal gas at nil rate of duty, and those lists were approved by the proper officer. A further classification list was also filed in March 1997. In these circumstances, the record disclosed the relevant facts to the department, and the invocation of the extended period for the period September 1996 to August 2000 was not justified. As the demand was held to be time-barred, the merits were not examined.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the demand and penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the material facts through approved classification lists, extended limitation for duty demand cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---