Extended limitation under central excise law fails without suppression; disclosed facts barred the demand and penalty.

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the material facts had been disclosed to the department through correspondence and classification documents. Since the goods were described as tin cuttings and punching waste, and the department had access to those facts before approving the classification list, there was no concealment or misstatement. On that basis, the demand was held time-barred and the penalty could not survive, so the appeals succeeded on limitation and the demand and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on the allegation of suppression or misstatement, and whether the proceedings were therefore time-barred.

Analysis: The appellants had disclosed in correspondence and classification-related documents that the goods arose as tin cuttings and punching waste and were treated as waste and scrap. The department had access to the material facts before approving the classification list. In the absence of concealment or mis-declaration, the conditions for invoking the longer limitation period were not satisfied. The earlier prima facie view on limitation was found consistent with the settled principles on suppression and the facts on record.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invokable, the demand was barred by limitation, and the penalty could not survive.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the limitation issue and the demand as well as penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A can be invoked only on proof of suppression or misstatement of material facts, and where the relevant facts were disclosed to the department, the demand is time-barred.

---