Extended limitation under Central Excise rules requires wilful misstatement or suppression; a mere "mis-declared" allegation was insufficient.

The longer period under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unavailable because the show cause notice alleged only "mis-declared" goods and did not allege wilful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of facts in the statutory terms. The Tribunal read the proviso as requiring a wilful element in any misstatement allegation and found the notice materially different from that formulation. On that basis, the Collector's view that the extended period could not be invoked was upheld, and the rectification application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the longer period under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be invoked when the show cause notice used the expression "mis-declared" but did not allege wilful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of facts in the terms required by the rule.

Analysis: The application sought rectification of the earlier final order on the footing that the show cause notice contained an allegation of mis-declaration. The Tribunal compared the wording of the notice with the language of the proviso to Rule 56A and found that the expression used in the notice was materially different from the statutory formulation requiring wilful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of facts. It held that the word "mis-statement" in the governing provision had to be read with the qualifying element of wilfulness, and that the notice did not contain that allegation. On that basis, the Collector's view that the extended period was unavailable was upheld.

Conclusion: The longer period was not invokable and the rectification application failed.

---