Extended limitation under central excise law fails where non-payment is disclosed in the return and no suppression is shown.

Where non-payment of central excise duty was disclosed in the statutory RT-12 return and the show cause notice followed scrutiny of that return, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked absent suppression of facts or deliberate withholding with intent to evade duty. On those facts, the demand was time-barred, and the consequential interest and penalty could not survive. The cited precedent was treated as inapplicable because it did not involve the proviso to Section 11A in the same manner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty raised under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was barred by limitation in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The duty for the relevant month was not paid while the assessee's RT-12 return disclosed the non-payment. The demand notice was issued on scrutiny of that return. On these facts, there was no suppression of material information or deliberate withholding of facts with intent to evade duty, which were necessary to invoke the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A. The demand therefore could not be sustained on the basis of extended limitation. The cited precedent was found inapplicable because the proviso to Section 11A was not involved there in the same manner.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation failed, and the demand was held to be time-barred in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and consequential interest and penalty could not survive, and the appeal succeeded on the ground of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant non-payment is disclosed in the statutory return and the notice is issued on scrutiny of that return, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A cannot be invoked absent suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---