Extended excise limitation requires proof of suppression or fraud; absent such ingredients, the notice was barred by limitation.

Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applies only when fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty is established. The assessee's exemption claim was supported by the classification list, departmental approval, the Drugs Controller's certificate, and clearances reflected in gate passes without concealment, so no material showed the requisite suppression or intent to evade. The show cause notice was therefore without jurisdiction and barred by limitation, and it was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation and without jurisdiction for want of suppression, misstatement, fraud or collusion.

Analysis: The exemption claim was supported by the classification list, departmental approval, the Drugs Controller's certificate and clearances made without concealment in the gate passes. On these facts, there was no material showing suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, fraud, collusion or deliberate contravention with intent to evade duty. In the absence of those ingredients, the extended five-year period could not be invoked under Section 11A, and the notice was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation, and it was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is available only where the ingredients of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade duty are established; absent such elements, the normal limitation applies.

---