Retrospective manufacture amendment cannot extend excise limitation without suppression or wilful misstatement.

A retrospective amendment treating repacking and relabelling as manufacture did not, by itself, displace the normal limitation under Section 11A for recovery of central excise duty. The record did not establish suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period could not be invoked. On that basis, the demand for the period beyond the normal limitation was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for central excise duty could be sustained for the period beyond the normal limitation under Section 11A on the ground of retrospective amendment treating repacking and relabelling as manufacture, and whether the extended period could be invoked for alleged suppression or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The demand was examined in the light of the settled position that retrospective amendment does not, by itself, displace the limitation prescribed for recovery of duty. The record did not show suppression of facts or a deliberate misstatement by the appellants with intent to evade duty. In the absence of such ingredients, the proviso to Section 11A could not be applied. The demand for the period beyond the normal limitation was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellants. The extended period was held inapplicable and the demand beyond the normal period of limitation was unsustainable.

---