Extended limitation under Central Excise law unavailable where returns disclosed duty particulars and no suppression was shown.

Duty-related particulars disclosed in statutory RT-12 returns, including exempted and dutiable clearances, put the department on notice of the manufacture and removals, and the officer was expected to verify the exemption claim when the returns were approved. As the notice was issued about two years later and the record showed no clandestine removal, suppression of facts, misstatement, or mala fide conduct, the extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The demand was therefore time-barred and the Revenue could not rely on the longer limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise duty demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the extended period could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The clearances and monthly RT-12 returns disclosed the manufacture and removal details, including exempted and dutiable clearances, from time to time. The relevant officer was expected to verify the correctness of the exemption availed when the returns were finally approved. The notice was issued after about two years, and the record did not disclose clandestine removal, suppression of facts, misstatement, or any mala fide conduct warranting invocation of the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred, and the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded on the ground of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-related particulars are disclosed in statutory returns and there is no suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent, the extended limitation under Section 11A cannot be invoked merely because the department issued notice belatedly.

---