Extended limitation under excise law needs deliberate suppression and intent to evade; mere procedural omission is insufficient.

Extended limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where the relevant facts about ethylene glycol recovery in a waste recovery plant were already within departmental knowledge through correspondence, an earlier adjudication order and statutory returns. Mere non-filing of a classification list or other procedural omission did not amount to deliberate suppression of facts or conscious withholding of information with intent to evade duty. The extended period therefore was unavailable, and the associated penalties were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for duty was barred by limitation under the extended period under Section 11A, and whether the penalties imposed were sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant facts showing recovery of ethylene glycol in the waste recovery plant were already within the Department's knowledge through correspondence, an earlier adjudication order, and statutory returns. In these circumstances, the non-filing of a classification list or similar procedural omission did not amount to deliberate suppression of facts or conscious withholding of information with intent to evade duty. The condition for invoking the extended period under Section 11A requires something positive beyond mere inaction or failure, together with the requisite intent to evade payment of duty.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the penalties were unsustainable.

---