Limitation under Central Excise law failed where no suppression was shown and extended period could not be invoked.

Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available because the show cause notice was issued months after the sample and test report, without any allegation or material of suppression. The goods were cleared with departmental knowledge, the assessments were not provisional, and there was no mala fide misdescription in the classification list. On these facts, the demand failed on limitation and the impugned order was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invocable.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued several months after the sample was drawn and the test report was received. No suppression was alleged, and the department did not disclose any material showing why the extended period of limitation could be invoked. The goods were cleared with the knowledge of the departmental authorities, the assessments were not made provisional, and the case was not one of mala fide misdescription in the classification list.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on limitation, and the impugned order was not maintainable.

---