Extended limitation under excise law failed where disclosure was made and suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved.

Extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the sales pattern to excise authorities and the authorities had approved the price lists on that basis. The record did not establish suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement by the assessee, and correspondence relating to dealings between the related person and its customers did not show the assessee's participation or benefit. On these facts, the ingredients for the proviso to Section 11A(1) were not made out, so any duty demand was confined to the normal period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the basis of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The pattern of sale had been disclosed to the excise authorities, who had consciously treated the sale to the related person as the basis of assessable value and had approved the price lists accordingly. The record did not show suppression or misstatement by the assessee of any material fact relating to its own transactions. The correspondence relied upon for the demand mainly concerned dealings between the related person and its customers, in which the assessee had no participation or benefit. On these facts, the ingredients required for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) were not established.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement was rejected and the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable; any duty demand was confined to the normal period.

---