Extended excise limitation cannot apply absent suppression or wilful misstatement; demand held time-barred.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could be invoked only if its strict conditions were met. On the facts, the assessee had disclosed its manufacturing process and answered departmental queries, while the classification and exemption issues were already under consideration and the Department had earlier approved the classification list and granted the benefit. As the record showed no positive suppression or wilful misstatement, the proviso could not apply. The demand for the relevant period was therefore time-barred.

---

---

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.

Analysis: The Respondent had disclosed its manufacturing process and answered the Department's queries. The classification dispute and the exemption issue were already in the field, and the Department had approved the classification list and granted the benefit earlier. The record did not show any positive act of suppression or wilful misstatement by the Respondent. The proviso to Section 11A is an exception and can be applied only when its conditions are strictly satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not attracted, and the demand for the relevant period was time-barred.

---