Extended limitation cannot apply without a finding of suppression or intent to evade duty, making the demand time-barred.

The extended period of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the adjudicating authorities recorded no finding of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. As the limitation objection had been specifically raised and the demand rested on rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with section 11A, the absence of the required mens rea finding meant the recovery for the relevant period could not survive. The demand was therefore treated as time-barred and the order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the absence of a finding on suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed under rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The limitation plea had been specifically raised, but neither the original authority nor the first appellate authority recorded a finding on deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. In the absence of such a finding, the recovery for the relevant period could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be hit by limitation and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudicating authorities do not record a finding of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, the extended period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked.

---