Extended limitation under Section 11A requires proof of suppression, not just missing classification papers, where departmental knowledge is shown.

Extended limitation under Section 11A cannot be sustained merely from an alleged failure to file a separate classification list where the assessee has placed material showing departmental knowledge and regular scrutiny of statutory records. The adjudicating authority must examine that evidence on the question of suppression and intent to evade duty; a finding cannot rest only on the absence of Rule 173B compliance. On the record as it stood, the invocation of the extended period was not upheld and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A could be invoked on the allegation of suppression when the assessee had placed material on record showing departmental knowledge and the adjudicating authority had not dealt with that material.

Analysis: The appellant had asserted, in reply to the show cause notice, that the Department was aware of the manner of manufacture and the receipt of clinker from outside the factory, and that statutory records, returns, and gate documents had been regularly filed and scrutinised. Those assertions bore directly on the question whether suppression existed so as to justify invocation of the extended period under Section 11A. The adjudicating authority proceeded on the footing that non-filing of a separate classification list under Rule 173B itself established contravention with intent to evade duty, but did not examine the specific evidence relied upon by the appellant on departmental knowledge and periodic scrutiny of records.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended limitation period was not upheld on the record as it stood, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

---