Willful suppression and misstatement are required to trigger extended excise limitation; absence of such finding defeats jurisdiction.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be invoked only on proof of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, willful suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Although the notice alleged misstatement or suppression, it did not specifically plead willfulness, and the adjudicating authority recorded no factual finding that the assessee had acted willfully. In the absence of that jurisdictional precondition, the extended period was unavailable, and the adjudication order was treated as jurisdictionally flawed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be invoked in the absence of a finding that the assessee had made a willful misstatement or willful suppression of facts, and whether the adjudication was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 11A, as applicable at the relevant time, permitted extension of the normal six-month period only where short-levy or short-payment had occurred by reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, willful suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The show-cause notice alleged misstatement or suppression, but did not specifically allege that such conduct was willful. More importantly, the adjudicating authority did not record a factual finding that the assessee had acted willfully in suppressing facts or making a misstatement. In the absence of such a finding, the legal precondition for invoking the extended period was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the adjudication order was rightly treated as jurisdictionally flawed.

---