Extended limitation in excise duty recovery fails absent suppression, fraud, or misstatement in the notice.

A differential duty demand could not be sustained where the show cause notice invoked Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 without any specific allegation of suppression, fraud, or misstatement. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts from the outset, and the Department already had the production and excise-control dates on record. On that material, the duty basis and refund had been determined, so a later inference of concealment could not revive time-barred recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for recovery of differential duty was barred by limitation in the absence of any explicit or implied of suppression, fraud, or misstatement in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The notice proceeded under Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and did not contain any specific allegation of suppression, fraud, or misstatement. In the absence of such a charge, and where the record showed that the appellants had disclosed the relevant facts from the beginning, the extended period could not be invoked merely on a later inference that the declaration was . The Department had before it the material showing the date of production and the date of coming under excise control, and the base determination as well as the refund were made on that record.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

---