Suppression and extended limitation under Central Excise law sustained where third-party brand use was not disclosed in classification filings.

Non-disclosure in a classification list of a material fact affecting exemption eligibility, such as clearance of goods under third-party brand names, was treated as suppression where the record did not show reliable departmental awareness. Approval of the classification list without disclosure did not amount to knowledge by the Revenue, and unexplained references in gate passes were insufficient to prove notice. On that basis, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, was held correctly invokable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was invokable on the ground that the appellants had suppressed the fact that the goods were cleared under the brand names of others.

Analysis: The classification list filed by the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. but did not disclose that the goods were being manufactured with the brand names of third parties. Approval of the classification list, without disclosure of this material fact, did not establish knowledge on the part of the Revenue. The record also did not show that the appellants had specifically informed the Department that the goods bore the brand marks, and mere mention of the words 'BM' or 'ESCORT' in some gate passes, without explanation, was insufficient to prove departmental awareness. In these circumstances, the finding of suppression was sustained and the authorities were justified in invoking the extended period under Section 11A read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked; the plea of absence of suppression failed and the appeal was against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-disclosure in the classification list of a material fact affecting eligibility to exemption, coupled with no reliable evidence of departmental awareness, amounts to suppression sufficient to justify invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

---