Extended limitation under central excise failed where clearances were under approved classification lists and suppression was not proved.

Duty clearances made under approved classification lists and at rates accepted by the Department did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period on allegations of suppression or misdeclaration. The goods were described in the lists as laminated non-wovens, and if further particulars about ingredients were needed, it was for the Department to seek them before approval. On those facts, suppression was not established, the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked, and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

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

Analysis: The clearances were made under approved classification lists and duty was paid at the rates accepted by the Department. The goods were described in the classification lists as laminated non-wovens, and if further particulars regarding ingredients were required, it was for the Department to seek them before approving the classification. On these facts, the allegation of suppression or misdeclaration was not sustainable, and the extended period could not be applied.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the invocation of the extended period was not justified.

---