Extended limitation under excise law unavailable where the Department already knew the facts and had earlier raised the same exemption issue.

A later excise demand for an earlier period was held time-barred because the Department had already raised the same exemption issue in a prior notice and had approved the assessee's classification list. On those facts, the record did not support deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked. The demand therefore failed on limitation.

---

---

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

Analysis: The same ground for denial of exemption had earlier been raised in a prior notice, and the present notice was issued later for an anterior period on the same basis. The assessee had filed the classification list and the Department had approved it; in such circumstances, the Department could have pursued the matter earlier and the assessee's conduct, including payment pursuant to the earlier notice, supported absence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department had prior knowledge of the material facts and had earlier raised the same issue, a later demand for an earlier period cannot be sustained by invoking suppression to extend limitation under Section 11A.

---