Clandestine removal allegations can support extended limitation where the notice clearly asserts suppression of facts and non-payment of duty.

A show cause notice alleging clandestine removal of marble slabs without invoice and without entry in statutory records was treated as sufficient notice of suppression of facts for invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the extended period was held invokable on the stated facts. Because the appellate authority had decided only the limitation issue and had not examined the substantive dispute, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the basis of a show cause notice alleging clandestine removal and suppression of facts, and whether the matter was liable to be remanded for decision on merits.

Analysis: The show cause notice specifically alleged that duty had not been paid on marble slabs removed clandestinely without invoice and without reflecting the clearance in statutory records. Such allegations were treated as sufficient notice of one of the statutory ingredients in the proviso to Section 11A(1), namely suppression of facts. The reasoning accepted that once the notice clearly asserts clandestine clearance and non-payment of duty, the assessee is put to notice of the basis for invoking the extended period. As the appellate authority had disposed of the matter only on limitation and had not examined the substantive controversy, the proper course was to send the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be invokable on the facts stated in the notice, and the appellate order was set aside with a remand for fresh decision on merits.

---