Extended limitation under Central Excise law was unavailable where disclosure was sufficient and no suppression or misdeclaration was proved.

The earlier classification list sufficiently disclosed the nature of the manufacturer's activity, and the later description did not show any deliberate attempt to mislead. As the department failed to establish suppression or misdeclaration, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked, and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

---

---

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 facts of the case.

Analysis: The earlier classification list described the goods in a manner sufficient to inform the department of the nature of the appellant's manufacturing activity. The later description did not establish a deliberate attempt to mislead, and the department could not show suppression or misdeclaration so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

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

---