Extended limitation in excise requires suppression or misdeclaration; mere misclassification does not justify time-barred demand.

Approved classification lists under the Central Excise Act weighed against use of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1). Mere misclassification, without a positive and wilful act of suppression or misdeclaration, was insufficient to trigger the extended period. Reproduction of the tariff heading in the classification list did not, by itself, amount to a deliberate representation that the goods were measuring or checking instruments. The extended period was therefore unavailable to the department, and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to the department on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The classification lists filed by the appellant had been approved by the department over a period of time. Mere misclassification, without a positive and wilful act of suppression or misdeclaration, was held insufficient to invoke the extended period. Reproduction of the tariff heading in the classification list, by itself, did not amount to a deliberate representation that the goods were measuring or checking instruments.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department, and the demand was time-barred.

---