Extended limitation under excise law fails where facts were disclosed and no intent to evade duty is shown.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts, including classification details and the nature of gas supplies, and the department was already aware of the pipeline-based clearances. Those disclosures negatived wilful suppression or deliberate withholding of information, and there was no material showing an intention to evade duty. As the statutory ingredients for invoking the extended period were not met, the demand was barred by limitation and could not be sustained beyond the normal period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The demand related to clearances made in 1988, while the show cause notice was issued only in 1991. The appellant had filed a classification list, informed the department that lean gas was being manufactured, and promptly furnished details of supplies to the buyer when asked by the Superintendent. The department was aware from the appellant's correspondence and the ground plan that the gas was being supplied through a pipeline. These facts did not support a finding of wilful suppression or deliberate withholding of information. In the absence of an intention to evade duty, the ingredients required for application of the extended period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue and the demand was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A requires both wilful suppression or misstatement and an intention to evade duty; where the assessee has disclosed the material facts and the department had knowledge of the supply, the demand cannot be sustained beyond the normal limitation period.

---