Extended limitation under Section 11A fails when facts were known and the classification list was approved under Rule 56C.

The extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where permission to work under Rule 56C had already been granted, the classification list was filed during that permission, and the department was aware of the relevant facts. Approval of the classification list could not later be followed by an allegation of suppression or misstatement on the same record, because the ingredients for extended limitation were absent. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A on the allegation of suppression or misstatement of facts, when permission under Rule 56C had been granted and the classification list had been approved.

Analysis: The permission to work under Rule 56C had already been granted and the request for extension was not disputed. The classification list was filed while that permission was in force, and the proper course was for the department to deny the benefit if it was not available, rather than approve the list and later allege suppression. The record also showed that the department was aware of the relevant facts, including the working under Rule 56C, and another departmental order had already held that the allegation of suppression was not sustainable. On these facts, the ingredients required to invoke the extended period were absent.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available to the department and the demand was time-barred; the appeal succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside.

---