Extended limitation period rejected in excise dispute; time-barred demands were set aside and remaining matters remanded for re-quantification.

The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable because the dispute arose from changing interpretations and did not establish suppression or intent to evade duty. It also noted that the earlier order had been set aside by the Supreme Court and was not binding in the de novo proceedings. Some demands were found wholly time-barred and set aside, while the remaining matters were remanded for re-quantification within the normal period with consideration of cum-duty benefit and SSI exemption where applicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the excise demands and whether the demands for certain appeals were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the earlier order stood set aside by the Supreme Court and was not binding in the de novo proceedings. On the facts, it accepted the assessees' contention that the dispute involved changing interpretations and could not sustain invocation of suppression or intent to evade duty for the longer period. It further held that the demand in some appeals fell entirely outside limitation, while in others the matter had to be remanded for re-quantification within the normal period. The Tribunal also directed consideration of cum-duty benefit and SSI exemption where applicable.

Conclusion: The extended period was held inapplicable. Some demands were set aside as wholly time-barred, and the remaining matters were remanded for de novo quantification within the normal period with consequential benefit of SSI exemption and cum-duty relief, to the extent admissible.

---