Statutory appeal authorisation and excise limitation rules bar extended demand without pleaded suppression allegations clearly.

Statutory authorisation under the amended appellate scheme permits the Collector of Central Excise to direct an officer to file an appeal against an order of the Collector (Appeals), so the Revenue's preliminary objection on maintainability failed. The excise demand was also held time-barred because limitation is tested by the law in force when proceedings are initiated, and the show-cause notice contained no allegation of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Without that factual foundation, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand could not be sustained under a different provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise was maintainable under the appellate scheme; (ii) whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and whether the notice could be sustained under the provisions invoked.

Issue (i): whether the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise was maintainable under the appellate scheme

Analysis: The appellate provision empowered the Collector of Central Excise to direct an officer to file an appeal on his behalf against an order of the Collector (Appeals). The objection that the Revenue was not an aggrieved party was rejected in view of the statutory authorisation and the scheme of the amended appellate chapter.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be maintainable and the preliminary objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and whether the notice could be sustained under the provisions invoked

Analysis: The show-cause notice was issued after the relevant period of clearance, and the Tribunal applied the principle that the limitation applicable is that in force when proceedings are initiated. The notice did not contain an allegation of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, so the extended limitation could not be invoked. The attempt to sustain the demand under a different rule could not cure the defect in the absence of the necessary factual foundation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for with the appellate order granting relief to the respondent, and the Revenue's challenge failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: An excise demand must be tested on the limitation provisions applicable at the time of initiation of proceedings, and the extended period cannot be used without a pleaded foundation of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; the Collector's statutory authorisation under the appellate provision preserves the Revenue's right of appeal.

---