Extended limitation under excise law needs specific allegations of suppression or intent to evade duty.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applies only where the show cause notice specifically alleges and the record establishes fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or similar intent to evade duty. Where the relevant facts were already available to the department through audit and visits, and there was no deliberate withholding of information by the assessee, mere omission or non-declaration was insufficient to justify extended limitation. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred and could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was time-barred and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not specifically allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The relevant facts were already available to the department through audit and other visits, and the record did not support any deliberate withholding of information by the assessee. The proviso to Section 11A was required to be construed strictly, and mere non-declaration or omission, without deliberate suppression, was insufficient to extend limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalty could not survive limitation, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A applies only when the show cause notice specifically alleges and establishes deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or similar intent to evade duty; mere omission or known facts do not suffice.

---