Extended limitation for excise duty fails where invoices and returns disclosed value details and no wilful suppression was shown.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available because the record showed no wilful suppression or deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. Although the appellant did not file Part II price lists for UNICEF supplies, the gate passes, invoices and monthly RT-12 returns were on record, and the invoices disclosed both the US dollar price and the excisable value in Indian rupees. As the duty on UNICEF supplies was fully reimbursed under a cash compensation scheme, the non-disclosure of the contract price in the price lists could not justify invocation of the extended limitation period, and the show cause notice was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the facts, and whether the show cause notice was therefore time-barred.

Analysis: The appellant had not filed price lists in Part II for supplies made to UNICEF, but the relevant gate passes, invoices and monthly RT-12 returns were on record. The invoices disclosed the US dollar price and also showed the excisable value in Indian rupees, and the transactions were covered by a cash compensation scheme under which the duty paid on UNICEF supplies was fully reimbursed. In these circumstances, the non-disclosure of the UNICEF contract price in the price lists could not be treated as wilful suppression or deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted, and the show cause notice was barred by time.

---