Limitation under Central Excise law: absence of suppression allegations confined the demand to the normal six-month period.

Under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the extended limitation period could not be invoked because the classification lists had already been verified and approved by departmental officers and disclosed the yarn composition. As the show cause notice and corrigendum contained no material allegation of suppression of facts or misstatement, the normal six-month limitation applied. The demand was therefore held time-barred and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The classification lists filed by the appellant had been verified and approved by the departmental officers and disclosed the composition of the yarn. The show cause notice and corrigendum did not contain material alleging suppression of facts or misstatement so as to justify invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Rule 10. In the absence of such allegation and proof, only the normal six-month limitation applied.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---