Extended limitation under Central Excise law unavailable where demand facts were already known and no suppression was shown.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was unavailable because the sales policy and sales agreement forming the basis of the demand were already within the Department's knowledge in 1997. On that factual foundation, no suppression of facts or misstatement could be attributed to the assessee, so the demand had to be raised within the normal limitation period. The reasoning was held to be supported by record and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The demand was therefore time barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Analysis: The Tribunal's rectification order had held that the proceedings had to be initiated within the normal period and that the extended period was unavailable. The materials forming the basis of the demand, namely the sales policy and sales agreement, were already within the Department's knowledge in 1997. On that factual foundation, no suppression of facts or mis-statement could be attributed to the assessee so as to justify the extended limitation period. The finding was supported by reasons and did not disclose any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was time barred.

---