Excise limitation dispute turns on prior departmental knowledge and mismatch with the suppression allegation in the notice.

Limitation governed the excise demand because the dispute on includibility of the cost of bushes dropped out, leaving only whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could apply. The lower appellate authority's finding that the Department knew the relevant process and that the extended period was unavailable was not successfully challenged on merits. The ground urged in appeal relied on a different allegation of suppression from the one in the show-cause notice, so it could not justify extended limitation. The demand was therefore time-barred and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

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

Analysis: The dispute on includibility of the cost of bushes did not survive, and the remaining controversy was confined to limitation. The finding of the lower appellate authority that the Department had knowledge of the relevant process and that the extended period was not available remained unchallenged on merits. The ground pressed in appeal proceeded on a different allegation of suppression from that contained in the show-cause notice, so it could not sustain invocation of the extended period. On these facts, no valid basis existed to disturb the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the Revenue's challenge on limitation failed.

---