Limitation period for excise demand turns on proof of suppression; absence of allegations kept only the six-month bar.

The extended limitation period for an excise demand applies only where the department proves fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under the proviso to Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. As no such allegation was made in the notice, and the record showed contemporaneous disclosure by the assessee, approval of the classification list, regular RT-12 filings and departmental correspondence supporting the assessee's view, the foundation for the longer period failed. The demand was therefore governed only by the ordinary six-month limitation period, and not by the extended five-year period, with the finding in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned excise demand was governed by the ordinary six-month limitation period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules or by the extended five-year period on account of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The extended period could apply only if the department established one of the statutory conditions attracting the proviso to Rule 10. The notice did not allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and the record showed contemporaneous disclosure by the assessee, approval of the classification list, regular filing of RT-12 returns, and departmental correspondence supporting the assessee's understanding. These circumstances negatived any foundation for invoking the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be governed only by the six-month limitation period, and not by the extended five-year period; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

---