Extended limitation period requires more than non-declaration where bona fide belief negates suppression and intent to evade duty.

A classification list under Rule 173B(1)(a) had to disclose all goods produced and intended for removal, but non-declaration alone was not enough to establish suppression, wilful misstatement or fraud for the extended limitation period. On the facts, the assessee's belief that the disputed item was waste and not dutiable goods was treated as bona fide, and the surrounding circumstances did not show an intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the issue of excisability on merits was left unexamined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the ground of suppression and intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The majority held that the assessee was required to file a classification list under Rule 173B(1)(a), including all goods produced and intended to be removed. However, non-declaration by itself did not establish suppression, wilful mis-statement, or fraud for invoking the extended period. The evidence supported a bona fide belief that the disputed item was waste and not dutiable goods, and the circumstances did not show an intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore hit by limitation, and the merits of excisability were not examined.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the duty demand was barred by time in favour of the assessee.

---