Extended limitation for excise demand fails absent suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty.

The extended limitation period under the excise provision could not be invoked where the show cause notice was confined to duty computation and contained no allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty. An incorrect method of duty calculation, by itself, did not satisfy the statutory conditions for the longer limitation period, so the demand was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation in the absence of any allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The show cause notice was confined to the appellant's method of duty calculation and did not allege suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or any intent to evade duty. Even if the duty computation was incorrect, that by itself did not establish the ingredients necessary for invoking the longer limitation period under the governing excise provision. The absence of such foundational s in the notice was ative of the limitation plea.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department, and the demand could not be sustained; the appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

---