Limitation bars cess demand where no suppression is shown and the repealing statute does not override statutory time limits.

A cess demand raised long after the relevant period was held time-barred because no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was attributable to the assessee, and the Department was already aware of the non-payment. Section 13 of the Cotton Copra and Vegetable Oil Cess (Abolition) Act, 1987 preserved recovery of arrears but did not expressly override the limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the normal six-month period continued to apply. The demand was therefore not maintainable, and the appeal failed without any determination on the underlying leviability of the cess.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of cess was barred by limitation in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; (ii) whether Section 13 of the Cotton Copra and Vegetable Oil Cess (Abolition) Act, 1987 overrode the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): whether the demand of cess was barred by limitation in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The demand was raised long after the relevant period. The Revenue's own case showed that the assessee had been paying cess earlier, albeit under pressure, and the Department was aware of the non-payment when it occurred. In these circumstances, no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts could be attributed to the assessee.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether Section 13 of the Cotton Copra and Vegetable Oil Cess (Abolition) Act, 1987 overrode the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 13 preserved collection of arrears of duty under the repealed enactments, but it did not expressly exclude or override the statutory limitation under Section 11A. In the absence of express overriding language, the normal limitation continued to apply.

Conclusion: Section 13 did not displace the limitation under Section 11A, and the six-month period remained applicable.

Final Conclusion: The cess demand was not maintainable because it was barred by limitation, and the Revenue's appeal failed without any adjudication on the underlying leviability of the cess.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for cess cannot be sustained beyond the statutory limitation period unless the statute expressly overrides that limitation or the case is supported by wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

---