Extended limitation under excise law fails without deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty.

The extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the proviso requires deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere omission or an incorrect statement is insufficient unless wilful. The record showed genuine doubt over the dutiability of the product, including conflicting circulars and a classification dispute, and the absence of intent to evade was supported by the contractual arrangement under which duty was reimbursable. The Revenue therefore failed to prove the conditions for invoking the extended period, and the demand beyond the normal limitation period was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invocable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 11A requires suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Suppression must be deliberate and aimed at evading duty; mere omission or an incorrect statement is not enough unless it is wilful. The record showed that there was genuine scope for doubt about the dutiability of the product, given the competing circulars and the controversy on classification. The finding of absence of intention to evade was also supported by the factual plea that duty was reimbursable under the contractual arrangement. On that basis, the Revenue failed to establish the elements necessary to justify the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the demand raised beyond the normal period was unsustainable; the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation under Section 11A can be invoked only on proof of deliberate suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, collusion, or similar conduct done with intent to evade duty.

---