Extended limitation in excise cannot be used where all material facts were already disclosed through regular returns and assessments.

Where the goods and their description were already disclosed in gate passes annexed to RT-12 returns and those returns were finally assessed, the department was treated as already aware of the material facts. On that basis, even if the classification list involved misdeclaration, no fresh fact justified use of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The extended period was therefore unavailable, the demand could not be sustained on that basis, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---

---

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 for demanding duty on the ground of misdeclaration.

Analysis: The goods were reflected in the gate passes annexed to the RT-12 returns filed soon after clearance, and these returns had been assessed finally. The department was, therefore, already aware of the nature and description of the goods much before the notice was issued. In such circumstances, even assuming misdeclaration in the classification list, no new fact was shown to justify recourse to the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available to the department and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where all material facts are already disclosed to and known by the department through regular returns and assessment, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely on a later allegation of misdeclaration.

---