Limitation on excise duty demand: approved classification and disclosed description defeated extended period invocation.

The demand of duty was barred by limitation because the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The goods had been described to the department as a degreasing preparation, the classification list had been approved, and RT-12 assessments had also been accepted. On those facts, there was no suppression of material facts or basis to infer an intention to evade duty, and the department could not shift the entire responsibility for verifying classification onto the assessee. The disputed demand was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty 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 goods were described before the department as a degreasing preparation, and that description was treated as sufficiently indicative of a cleaning preparation. The department had approved the classification list and also the RT-12 assessments. On those facts, there was no suppression of material information and no basis to infer an intention to evade duty. The responsibility to verify the correct classification could not be shifted wholly to the assessee when the department had accepted the declared description and assessments.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available and the demand for the disputed period was barred by limitation.

---