Order 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mis Bharat Electronics Limited, a Central Government undertaking has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-12-1999 passed in Appeal No. E1798/95-NB by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") confirming the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, whereby he determined the differential duty of Rs 24,44,011.89 recoverable b under Section ll-A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 98(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, he has not imposed any penalty on the appellant as it was a government undertaking. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initiation of proceedings under the first proviso to Section ll-A of the Act was wholly unjustified because the appellant submitted the classification list on c 10-3-1989 wherein it has disclosed the description which is reproduced hereinbelow: Sl. No. Full description of each item of the goods produced, manufac- tured or warehoused including specifications (etc.) size number of counts (horse) power isort number etc. as the case may be together with the description would appear in the invoice.Chapter heading andsub-heading number is of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of /1986) under which thegoods fall. 123 HeadingSub-Heading 1.Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of Headings 85.25 to 85.28 (i) ANPRC A8A, (ii) ANPRC A9A, (iii) ANPRC AlO 85.298525.00 2.Transmission apparatus for radio-telephony, radio telegraphy, radio-broadcasting or television (i) ULSB, (ii) RRD 85.258525.00 3.Radio frequency transformers 85.048504.00 4.Part suitable for use solely orprincipally with the apparatus of Headings 85.25 to 85.28 PCM- MUX 85.298529.00 5.Radar apparatus, radio navigational aid apparatus and radio remote control apparatus BEST MK I with accessories 85.268526.00 That classification list was approved by the Department by an order dated 10-3-1989 w.e.f. 1-3-1989. 4. Thereafter, in the adjudication proceedings it was held that approval of the classification list was for the part of the item, namely, PCM MUX and not for the entire apparatus of PCM MUX. Therefore, there was intentional suppression on the part of the appellant and hence notice issued under the first proviso to Section ll-A(1) was justified. The Tribunal also arrived at the same conclusion. Hence, this appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the entire approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Therefore, there was intentional suppression on the part of the appellant and hence notice issued under the first proviso to Section ll-A(1) was justified. The Tribunal also arrived at the same conclusion. Hence, this appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the entire approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. The appellant is a Central Government undertaking and no inference can be drawn that the appellant intended to evade duty by misdeclaration of the items produced by it. As there was some mistake, it was corrected as soon as the attention of the appellant was drawn. With regard to the application of proviso to Section ll-A(1), this Court in Easland Combines v. CCEI held thus: (SCC pp. 42425, para 31) "31. It is settled law that for invoking the extended period of limitation duty should not have been paid, short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded because of either fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any provision or rules. This Court has held that these ingredients postulate a positive act and, therefore, mere failure to pay duty and/or take out a licence which is not due to any fraud, collusion or wilful statement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation." 6. From the law laid down by this Court it is apparent that there is no question of application of extended period of limitation as per the first proviso to Section ll-A(1) of the Act as it would be difficult to draw any inference that there was an intention on the part of the appellant to evade excise duty. 7. Hence, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Collector is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2000 8. In view of the amended Section ll-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the judgment rendered by this Court in Easland Combines v. CCEI the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 23-2-2000 passed in Final Order No. 278 of 2000 in Appeal No. E/2019 of 1997 by the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 23-2-2000 passed in Final Order No. 278 of 2000 in Appeal No. E/2019 of 1997 by the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The order dated 16-2-1994 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Division I), Vishakhapatnam is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.