Extended limitation under central excise law requires suppression with intent to evade duty, not mere disclosure disputes.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable where the department had been informed of the assessee's manufacturing activity, the assessee had explained the nature of the activity in correspondence with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, and registration had been obtained. On those facts, the Tribunal's finding that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was supported by the record, and the limitation issue was treated as a mixed question of law and fact. The proviso applies only in a fit case, and the factual finding was not shown to be perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could be invoked on the facts of the case in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The revenue had been informed of the assessee's manufacturing activity through correspondence with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, and the assessee had replied explaining the nature of the activity and had also obtained registration. On these facts, the Tribunal's finding that the department was aware of the relevant facts and that there was no suppression by the assessee was supported by material on record. Since invocation of the extended period required suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, the proviso could apply only in a fit case and not as a matter of course. The question of limitation was treated as a mixed question of law and fact, and the factual finding was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the appeal was not fit for admission.

---