Extended limitation under central excise law requires wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, not merely a change in opinion.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was unavailable where removals were made under an approved classification list and the relevant facts were already before the departmental authorities. A later change in opinion on the correct description of the input did not, without more, establish wilful suppression, misstatement, concealment, or intent to evade duty. Because the statutory conditions for invoking the extended period were not met on the admitted facts, the proviso was inapplicable and the show cause notice was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was available to the Department.

Analysis: The removal of goods had been made in accordance with an approved classification list and the material facts were before the departmental authorities. The change in opinion regarding the correct description of the input did not, by itself, establish wilful suppression, misstatement, concealment, or any intent to evade duty. On the admitted facts, the statutory requirements for invoking the extended limitation period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 11A was not attracted and the show cause notice was time-barred.

---