Extended limitation under central excise law requires fraud or suppression with intent to evade duty; mere suppression is insufficient.

The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act applies only when fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is established together with intent to evade duty. Mere suppression, without supporting material showing the statutory ingredients, is insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period. On the facts, the court found no adequate basis to disturb the Tribunal's view, declined the proposed reference, and rejected the application, resulting in relief for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking a reference on the question of applicability of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 11A(1) operates only where the demand is founded on fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, coupled with intent to evade duty. Suppression by itself is not enough; the department must establish the statutory ingredients that justify invocation of the extended period. On the facts, the court found only a solitary and bald statement and no sufficient material to warrant interference with the Tribunal's view that the proviso was not attracted.

Conclusion: The question proposed for reference was declined and the application was rejected, which is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) can be invoked only when fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is proved together with intent to evade duty; mere suppression, without such intent and supporting material, is insufficient.

---