Extended limitation under excise law requires proven suppression or intent to evade; mere non-disclosure is insufficient when the department knew the activity.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act applies only where fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty is legally established. Mere non-furnishing of production or clearance figures does not amount to suppression where the department was already aware of the manufacturing activity and the assessee had disclosed the factory arrangements through correspondence and permissions. On those facts, the larger period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred, making further consideration of classification unnecessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Analysis: The show cause notice covered a period beyond six months and contained no allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The correspondence between the assessee and the department showed that the manufacturing activity was known to the department and that the assessee had sought and obtained permissions for the relevant factory arrangements. A mere non-furnishing of production and clearance figures, in the background that the goods were believed to be exempt, did not amount to suppression of facts which the assessee was legally bound to disclose. In these circumstances, the statutory conditions for the larger period of limitation were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand could not be sustained and the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue, rendering consideration of classification unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period under Section 11A can be invoked only on the basis of legally established fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and mere failure to furnish particulars does not suffice where the department was already aware of the manufacturing activity.

---