https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88481 The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where the department proves positive suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud or collusion; mere non-payment, negligent accounting or clerical register errors are insufficient. As the notice did not specifically allege deliberate suppression in relation to the shortages and the record showed incorrect postings and clerical mistakes, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The duty demand on shortages was therefore time-barred, and the related penalty and confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also failed. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:13:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88481 The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where the department proves positive suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud or collusion; mere non-payment, negligent accounting or clerical register errors are insufficient. As the notice did not specifically allege deliberate suppression in relation to the shortages and the record showed incorrect postings and clerical mistakes, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The duty demand on shortages was therefore time-barred, and the related penalty and confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88481