Extended limitation under Central Excise law unavailable where declarations were disclosed and no suppression or concealment was shown.

Yearly declarations disclosing manufacture of branded talcum powder and its supply to the principal concern were filed and repeatedly accepted by departmental officers after further information was sought and replied to. On those facts, there was no concealment, withholding of material facts, resistance to inquiry, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was therefore not available, and the demand was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Analysis: The units had filed yearly declarations disclosing manufacture of the branded talcum powder and supply to the principal concern. The departmental officers had called for detailed information, received replies, and accepted the declarations for successive years. The record did not show any concealment, withholding of material facts, resistance to inquiry, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. In these circumstances, the basis for invoking the extended period was not made out.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period could not be invoked.

---