Extended limitation under excise law cannot be invoked without suppression or proper notice ingredients.

The extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where the show cause notice failed to set out the necessary ingredients for invoking the proviso and the adjudication did not establish suppression. The assessee's declaration of the activity, later obtaining of a licence, and a bona fide belief on non-dutiability, especially against the backdrop of conflicting excisability decisions, negatived clandestine removal. As suppression was not proved, the demand raised for the extended period could not be sustained and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked and the demand sustained where the show cause notice did not set out the necessary ingredients for such invocation and the assessee claimed bona fide belief regarding non-dutiability.

Analysis: The notice and adjudication did not establish the prerequisites for the extended limitation period, and the proviso to Section 11A was not properly invoked. The record also showed declaration of the activity and subsequent obtaining of licence, which negatived clandestine removal. In the backdrop of conflicting decisions on excisability and the assessee's bona fide belief, suppression could not be inferred so as to justify the longer period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand raised for the extended period could not be sustained. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

---