Suppression of facts sustains extended limitation, interest, and penalty where duty-paid clearances were omitted from records.

Suppression of facts justified invocation of the extended limitation period where MS pipes were short and cleared without being reflected in statutory records or RT-12 returns, and the appellant's own statement admitted manufacture and duty-free clearance. The later retraction was unsupported, so the duty demand was sustainable. Penalty under Section 11AC was also upheld because deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, once recorded in adjudication, is not confined to cases where only the extended period is invoked; interest under Section 11AB followed on the entire demand on the same factual finding. The demand, interest, and equal penalty were all sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty was rightly invoked on the basis of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. (ii) Whether interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were leviable even though part of the duty demand fell within the normal period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty was rightly invoked on the basis of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The duty demand arose from shortage and clearance of 88 MS pipes not reflected in statutory records and RT-12 returns. The appellant's statement under Section 14 admitted manufacture, stock position, and clearance without payment of duty. The later attempt to retract that admission was not supported by any satisfactory explanation for the delay or by evidence showing that the goods had not been cleared. On the record, the ingredients for invoking the extended period stood established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, and the duty demand was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were leviable even though part of the duty demand fell within the normal period of limitation.

Analysis: The legal question turned on the scope of Section 11AC and its relationship with the proviso to Section 11A(1). The Tribunal held that the grounds for extended limitation and for penalty are substantially identical, but Section 11AC is not confined only to cases where the extended period is invoked. If the ingredients of deliberate suppression or evasion are established in the adjudication order, penalty under Section 11AC can follow even where the duty demand includes the normal period. Since suppression with intent to evade duty was found on the facts, interest under Section 11AB also followed on the entire duty demand.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC were leviable on the entire duty demand.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand, interest, and equal penalty were all upheld, and the assessee's appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 11AC is attracted whenever the adjudication records deliberate suppression or evasion as contemplated by that provision, and it is not confined to cases where the extended period under Section 11A(1) is invoked.

---