Extended limitation under excise law requires proven suppression with intent to evade duty, not mere disputed classification.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act could be invoked only on proof of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. On the facts noted, the classification position of the diesel engines was already known to the Department, the classification list had been filed and approved, and the engines were manufactured for captive consumption. As suppression was not established, the extended period was held unsustainable and its invocation unjustified in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was correctly invoked for confirming the duty demand.

Analysis: The duty demand had been raised for a period extending beyond the normal limitation on the allegation that the assessee had failed to disclose the correct classification of the diesel engines and had suppressed material facts. The record showed, however, that the classification position of the engines had been known to the Department, the classification list had been filed and approved, and the engines were being manufactured for captive consumption in the manufacture of diesel shunters. The authority below did not address these factual aspects in a meaningful manner. For invoking the extended period, there must be material showing suppression with intent to evade duty, which was not established on the facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not sustainable and its invocation was unjustified, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) can be invoked only when suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty is shown; mere knowledge of the Department or a disputed classification is insufficient.

---