Extended limitation under central excise law fails where ER-2 returns and invoices fully disclose clearances and concessions.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the assessee had filed ER-2 returns, disclosed manufacture, export and DTA clearances, identified the notification availed, and furnished invoices. Those disclosures gave the department sufficient material to verify the clearances and concession claimed, so suppression or misstatement was not established. The Tribunal's finding of no suppression or incomplete disclosure rested on documentary evidence and was not shown to be perverse, with the result that the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of suppression or misstatement, in view of the ER-2 returns, invoices and other disclosures made by the assessee.

Analysis: The liability to recover duty beyond the normal period arises only where the department establishes fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of the Act or Rules with intent to evade duty. The record showed that the assessees had filed ER-2 returns in the prescribed format, disclosed the relevant particulars of manufacture, export and DTA clearances, mentioned the notification availed, and also furnished invoices. On those materials, the Central Excise officers had enough information to verify the clearances and the availment of concession. The Tribunal's finding that there was no suppression or incomplete disclosure was based on documentary evidence and was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred; the Revenue's challenge failed.

---