Extended limitation for duty demand cannot be invoked on the same facts without prior allegation of suppression or intent to evade.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A was unavailable where an earlier notice on the same valuation issue had proceeded without any allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement, and a later notice tried to invoke the longer period on substantially the same facts. The Tribunal treated the absence of an intent to evade duty as decisive, noting that the goods were cleared for captive consumption within the same group and any duty paid at the intermediate stage would be available as credit in the sister unit. On that basis, the demand was barred by limitation and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty for the extended period was barred by limitation in the absence of any allegation of suppression or misstatement in the earlier show cause notice on the same subject matter.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings on the same valuation issue had proceeded without any allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. The subsequent notice sought to invoke the extended period on substantially the same facts. The Tribunal applied the principle that, where the Department had already initiated action on the same matter without alleging wilful suppression or misstatement, the extended period under Section 11A could not later be invoked on the same foundation. The Tribunal also noted that the goods were cleared for captive consumption within the same group and that duty paid at the intermediate stage would be available as credit in the sister unit, supporting the absence of any intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand of duty was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

---