Extended limitation under Central Excise law requires deliberate suppression of facts; incomplete disclosure alone is insufficient.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act applies only where non-levy or short-levy results from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Suppression requires deliberate and wilful withholding of correct information, not merely incomplete disclosure. Where the department had inspected the process, collected samples, approved classification lists, and received a flow-chart disclosing the relevant post-forming process, the necessary element of suppression was absent. The extended period was therefore unavailable, and recovery was confined to the normal limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the facts of the case on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The relevant recovery provision originally allowed notice within six months and extended the period to five years only where non-levy or short-levy was occasioned by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The Court noted that the department had inspected the manufacturing process, collected samples, and approved the classification lists from time to time, and that the flow-chart supplied to the department disclosed the post-forming process. Mere failure to give fuller particulars was held insufficient; suppression of facts requires a deliberate and wilful withholding of correct information to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the demand was confined to the normal limitation period.

---