Extended limitation under excise law failed where no suppression or wilful misstatement was proved.

The extended period of limitation under excise law could not be invoked because the goods were cleared under statutory invoices referencing the exemption notification, the assessee had produced Indian Navy certificates for use on naval ships, and the required declaration under Rule 173B was filed. The Revenue was already aware of the clearances and the exemption claim, and it did not establish that the certificates were obtained by misrepresentation. As the ingredients of suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty were absent, the demand was held time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the excise law was invocable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The goods were cleared under statutory invoices with reference to the exemption notification, and the assessee had also produced certificates from the Indian Navy describing the goods as intended for use on board naval ships. The record showed no investigation by the Revenue to establish that the certificates were procured by misrepresentation. The Revenue was aware of the clearances and the claim under the notification, and the necessary declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also filed. In these circumstances, the ingredients required to invoke the extended period, namely suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, were not made out.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

---