Central excise limitation turns on deliberate suppression; assessed disclosures and a bona fide classification dispute defeat extended period invocation.

The extended limitation period for central excise duty under section 11A applies only where the department proves conscious, deliberate suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement intended to evade duty. Where the assessee disclosed the goods in RT-12 returns, those returns were assessed, and the classification position remained genuinely disputed after a tariff change, late filing or non-filing of a classification list did not by itself establish suppression. On the majority view, the demand was time-barred and the extended period was not invocable. A dissenting member considered the classification approval tentative and would have rejected the limitation defence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for central excise duty was barred by limitation, and whether the extended period under section 11A could be invoked on the basis of wilful suppression or mis-statement.

Analysis: The relevant goods were cleared after the appellants filed RT-12 returns disclosing the description, manufacture and use of the goods, and those returns were assessed by the department. The material on record showed that the classification of the goods was under dispute and that both sides were uncertain about the correct tariff position after the new tariff came into force. In these circumstances, late filing of the classification list or non-filing on the first day could not, by itself, establish deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. The extended period under section 11A is available only when there is conscious and deliberate suppression of material facts, and that standard was not satisfied on the facts found by the majority.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period under section 11A was not invocable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Dissenting Opinion: The Member (Technical) held that the classification list had been approved only tentatively and that the dispute over classification, coupled with the wording of the approval and the surrounding record, meant that limitation could not be pleaded by the appellants. On that view, the demand was not time-barred and the matter had to proceed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period for central excise demand cannot be invoked unless the department proves deliberate wilful suppression or mis-statement intended to evade duty; disclosure of relevant facts in assessed returns and a bona fide classification dispute negate such suppression.

---