Extended limitation under excise law was unavailable where classification was approved and no fraud or suppression was shown.

Where clearances were made on approved classification lists and the classification had already been finalised after verification, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was not available. In the absence of material showing fraud, suppression of facts, misstatement, or any contravention with intent to evade duty, and with departmental circulars and prior orders supporting the same classification view, the demand was treated as time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act on the basis of fraud, suppression of facts, misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared over a long period on the basis of approved classification lists, and the classification had earlier been finalised after verification. An order of the Collector (Appeals) had also accepted the classification under Heading 5205 and had not been challenged by the Revenue. In these circumstances, and in view of the departmental circulars and orders reflecting the same classification view, the Tribunal found no valid basis to allege fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation with intent to evade duty. The invocation of the extended period was therefore not justified.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was held to be inapplicable, and the demand was barred by limitation in favour of the assessee.

---