Extended limitation under Central Excise law cannot apply absent fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement in disclosed clearances.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the clearances to the jurisdictional range superintendent and the goods were cleared at nil duty under an exemption notification against purchaser certificates for R&D use. On these facts, the record did not support fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or similar conduct required to extend limitation, so the duty demand was held 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 for recovery of duty, and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued after the normal limitation period for duty relating to clearances made during 17-3-2001 to 25-4-2001. The assessee had furnished information to the jurisdictional range superintendent about clearance of the goods at nil rate of duty under the exemption notification against certificates issued by the purchaser for R&D use. In these circumstances, the record did not support an allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or similar conduct necessary to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the duty demand was time-barred. The assessee succeeded on this issue.

---