Limitation for excise demand fails where price lists disclose valuation basis and suppression is not established; provisional assessment also rejected.

Disclosure in the price lists of valuation on a cost-plus-manufacturing-profit basis was sufficient to alert the department that post-manufacturing elements were excluded, and departmental scrutiny without timely action did not support suppression of facts. The extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was therefore unavailable, making the duty and cess demand time-barred. The plea of provisional assessment also failed because no proper order, permission, or prescribed bond was shown, so clearances could not be treated as provisional. The cited Supreme Court ruling was held inapplicable because it concerned refund on final assessment, not demand proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and cess was barred by limitation for want of valid allegations of suppression of facts, and whether the plea of provisional assessment could sustain the demand.

Analysis: The price lists filed by the assessee disclosed valuation on the basis of manufacturing cost plus manufacturing profit, which was sufficient to alert the department that the declared value did not include post-manufacturing elements. The record also showed departmental scrutiny of the assessee's sales bills and correspondence, yet no timely action was taken within the normal period. On these facts, the allegation of suppression could not be sustained so as to invoke the extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The finding that clearances were provisional was also rejected because provisional assessment requires a proper order or permission and execution of the prescribed bond, neither of which was shown. The reliance on the cited Supreme Court decision was held inapplicable because that ruling concerned refund on final assessment and did not govern the present demand proceedings.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was inapplicable, the demand was time-barred, and the finding of provisional assessment was unsustainable.

---