Extended limitation for excise duty applied where continued clearances and non-compliance established suppression with intent to evade duty.

Suppression of manufacture and clearance of excisable goods with intent to evade duty justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A. The Tribunal rejected the plea of bona fide belief because the relevant exemption amendment had been published in the Official Gazette, the assessees continued clearances after the goods became dutiable, and they failed to comply with licensing and declaration requirements. On those facts, the cited precedent was distinguishable and the demand was not confined to six months.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was applicable on the ground of suppression of manufacture and clearance of excisable goods with intention to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessees did not dispute the duty liability on the clearances, but sought restriction of the demand to six months. The Tribunal found that the plea of bona fide belief was untenable, since the relevant exemption amendment was published in the Official Gazette, the assessees had continued clearances after the goods became dutiable, and they had not complied with the licensing and declaration requirements. On those facts, suppression of manufacture and clearance with intent to evade duty was established. The reliance on the cited precedent was held distinguishable on its facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked and the demand was not confined to six months.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee continues clearing excisable goods after they become dutiable and fails to comply with licensing and declaration obligations, suppression with intent to evade duty is established and the extended limitation period applies.

---