Wilful suppression and intent to evade are essential for extended excise limitation under section 11A.

Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise law applies only where suppression of facts is wilful and intended to evade duty. Where samples and test reports were already available to the department, including material showing purity above 95%, concealment was not established and the ingredient of intent to evade was absent. On those facts, the extended period was unavailable and the demand was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A could be invoked on the ground of wilful suppression of the purity of orthoxylene and consequent liability to duty.

Analysis: The department had initially approved the classification of orthoxylene under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the Board's later clarification indicated that orthoxylene of purity exceeding 95% would fall under Chapter 29. The record showed that samples had been drawn and test reports had been forwarded to the department, including a report indicating purity above 95%, which negatived the allegation that the relevant fact had been concealed from the department. On these facts, suppression was not wilful and there was no material to show an intent to evade duty, which is necessary for invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to section 11A was not available, the demand was barred by limitation, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period for excise duty can be invoked only where suppression of facts is wilful and directed to evasion of duty; mere non-disclosure without such intent is insufficient.

---