Wilful suppression and extended limitation under excise law fail where a mistaken view of a retrospective amendment is not enough.

Wilful suppression is not established merely because a price list was filed on the basis of an exemption notification, and a mistaken understanding of a later retrospective amendment did not justify use of the extended limitation period under section 11A. On the facts, the extended period could not be invoked. The first show cause notice, being beyond six months from the end of the relevant period, was quashed, while the second notice was enforceable only for the portion within the permissible limitation period, namely 15-3-1981 to 30-6-1981.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under section 11A could be invoked on the ground of wilful suppression of material facts, and whether the show cause notices were sustainable in whole or in part.

Analysis: The periods covered by the notices showed that one notice was beyond six months from the end of the relevant period, while the other was valid only for the portion falling within the permissible period. The question turned on whether the filing of the price list on the basis of an exemption notification amounted to wilful suppression. A mistaken understanding of the effect of a later retrospective amendment did not, by itself, establish suppression of facts. On the facts, the element of wilful suppression was not made out, and the extended period could not be applied.

Conclusion: The invocation of wilful suppression was rejected. The order of the Tribunal was set aside, the first show cause notice was quashed, and the second notice was held enforceable only for the period 15-3-1981 to 30-6-1981.

---