https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1671 The extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the proviso requires deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere omission or an incorrect statement is insufficient unless wilful. The record showed genuine doubt over the dutiability of the product, including conflicting circulars and a classification dispute, and the absence of intent to evade was supported by the contractual arrangement under which duty was reimbursable. The Revenue therefore failed to prove the conditions for invoking the extended period, and the demand beyond the normal limitation period was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:50:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1671 The extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the proviso requires deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere omission or an incorrect statement is insufficient unless wilful. The record showed genuine doubt over the dutiability of the product, including conflicting circulars and a classification dispute, and the absence of intent to evade was supported by the contractual arrangement under which duty was reimbursable. The Revenue therefore failed to prove the conditions for invoking the extended period, and the demand beyond the normal limitation period was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1671