Extended limitation under Central Excise law fails without concrete suppression allegations and prior departmental knowledge.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where the notice rests on a clear factual foundation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. A show cause notice issued nearly five years after the departmental search was found insufficient because it did not plead concrete facts supporting those allegations, and the relevant facts were already within the department's knowledge. On that basis, the demand was held time-barred and the limitation objection succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked in the absence of a proper factual foundation.

Analysis: The notice was issued nearly five years after the departmental search. The notice itself did not contain a concrete allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty sufficient to justify the extended period. The Court also relied on the later Supreme Court view that once the relevant facts were already within the department's knowledge, suppression for purposes of the extended limitation period could not be sustained. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's conclusion that the demand was time-barred was accepted.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the limitation objection succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period under Section 11A can be invoked only on a clear factual foundation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; where the material facts are already within the department's knowledge, suppression is not established.

---