Extended limitation under excise law fails where disclosures were made and no wilful suppression or intent to evade duty is shown.

Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A could not be invoked where the assessee disclosed the nature of the goods in the classification list and RT-12 returns, and the department had scrutinised and accepted the clearances over time. Departmental awareness was also evidenced by gate passes and correspondence seeking a revised classification list. As wilful suppression, misstatement, or a deliberate intent to evade duty was not established, the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the penalty was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period under the proviso to section 11A could be invoked on the ground of suppression or misstatement, and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellants had disclosed the nature of the goods in the classification list and RT-12 returns, and the department had scrutinised and accepted the clearances over time. The records also showed that the department was aware of the nature of the goods, including through gate passes and correspondence requiring a revised classification list. For invocation of the extended period, the department had to establish a deliberate intention to evade duty through wilful suppression or contravention, which was not shown on the facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable. The demand was time-barred and the penalty was unsustainable.

---