Extended period of limitation upheld where no declaration or statutory disclosure of manufacture and clearances was made to excise authorities.

Publicity in newspapers and electronic media did not amount to disclosure of manufacture and clearances to the Central Excise Department. No declaration was filed with the excise officers, no classification or price list was submitted, the goods were not properly recorded in RG 1, and clearances were made without statutory documents and without payment of duty. On those facts, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression and no basis to depart from its earlier view that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was available. The extended period of limitation was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was rightly invoked for alleged non-disclosure of manufacture and clearance of ships and spares.

Analysis: The appellants confined their challenge to limitation and relied on publicity in newspapers and electronic media to contend that there was no suppression. The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the appellants' own case, where it had held that publicity did not amount to declaration of production to the Department. It was noted that no declaration was made to the Central Excise Officers, no classification list or price list was filed, the goods were not properly recorded in RG 1, and clearances were made without statutory documents and without payment of duty. On those facts, there was no reason to depart from the earlier view that the extended period was available.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

---