Extended limitation cannot be invoked without specific suppression or intent to evade duty in a disclosed excise case.

Extended limitation for demand of differential duty was not available where the assessee had filed regular returns, disclosed the relevant facts, produced invoices and cost accountant's certificates, and paid duty and interest before the show cause notices. The notices contained no specific and substantiated allegation of suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. On those facts, the demand could not be treated as arising from clandestine conduct, so the longer limitation period and consequential penalty were unsustainable; the challenge to the limitation finding failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked for demand of differential duty and consequential penalty where the assessee had filed regular returns, disclosed the relevant facts, paid duty and interest before issuance of the show cause notices, and the notices contained no specific allegation of suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The dispute was confined to limitation, as the valuation under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and the resulting liability were not challenged. The record showed that the assessee had furnished invoices, cost accountant's certificates, and other material to the department, the factory had undergone audit scrutiny, and the differential duty with interest had been paid even before the notices were issued. The show cause notices did not contain a concrete allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. In these circumstances, the demand could not be treated as arising from any clandestine or concealed conduct, and the invocation of the longer limitation period was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified and was rightly set aside; the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's success on the limitation issue was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-payment or short payment of duty, without a specific and substantiated allegation of suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty, does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---