Extended limitation for excise duty denied absent allegations of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement in the notice.

The extended limitation period for differential excise duty could not be invoked where the show cause notice made no allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and did not invoke the applicable proviso under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Mere omission of relevant particulars in the classification list, gate passes, or RT 12 returns was insufficient to justify the five-year period. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty could be sustained for the extended period in the absence of an allegation in the show cause notice of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not contain any allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, nor did it invoke the proviso relevant to such cases under the limitation scheme in the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In such circumstances, the extended period of five years could not be applied merely because the goods were cleared without the relevant particulars being stated in the classification list, gate passes, or RT 12 returns.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available, and the demand was confined to the normal period.

---