JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —The Revenue calls upon this Court to answer the following question of law:- "Whether a demand cum show cause notice can not be issued within a period of five years from the relevant date as per the provisions contained under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944, when the party has suppressed the material fact of production and clearance of excisable goods from the department and contravened the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the rules made there under and the relevant notifications with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty;" 2. Facts leading to filing of the instant appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'') , are as under:- (a) M/s. Deyam Industries, the assessee herein, is engaged in the business of manufacture of electrical goods. It has set up its Unit at Nalagarh, an industrial estate established by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, within the territorial limits of Himachal Pradesh. (b) The Unit came into production sometime in February, 2008. In July 2009 itself, the assessee, by means of a written declaration apprised the revenue of availing benefits in terms of, and under the Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003, as amended from time to time. Pursuant thereto, the assessee started availing exemption from Central Excise Duty. This process continued till 19th April, 2011, when the revenue issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain as to why such benefit be not discontinued and the amount, subject matter of exemption, be not recovered alongwith interest and penalty thereupon. 3. The assessee responded to the same. Explanation so furnished did not find favour, with the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh, passing an order dated 19.02.2013, confirming levy of central excise duty and imposing penalty in the following terms:- "5.1 In view of above discussions I passed the following order:- 5.2 I confirm central excise duty amounting to Rs. 84, 81, 935/- (Eighty Four Lakhs eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred & thirty Five only) against the Noticees under proviso to Section 11A of the Act by invoking extended period of drop the remaining demand of Rs. 84, 81, 935/- (Eighty Four Lakhs eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred & thirty Five only) against the Noticees under proviso to Section 11A of the Act by invoking extended period of drop the remaining demand of Rs. 87, 75, 974/- (Eighty Seven Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four only) 5.3 I order charging of interest under Section 11AB of the Act on the amount confirmed against Sr. No. 5.2 above. 5.4 I impose penalty of Rs. 84, 81, 935/- (Eighty Four Lakhs eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred & thirty Five only) on the Noticees under Section 11AC of the Act." 4. Assailing the same, assessee preferred an appeal which stands decided in its favour by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, vide order dated 13.07.2015, in case titled as M/S Deyam Industry Versus CCE & ST, Chandigarh. Noticeably, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order so impugned before it for the reason that action initiated by the revenue was beyond the period of limitation and no ground for invoking the extended period was made out by the revenue, making the case fall within the exceptions carved out for taking appropriate action, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 5. For adjudication of the present appeal, we are concerned with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, which we reproduce as under:- "11A. 5. For adjudication of the present appeal, we are concerned with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, which we reproduce as under:- "11A. When any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, whether or not such non-levy or nonpayment, short-levy or short payment or erroneous refund, as the case may be , was on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation of excisable goods under any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, a Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice: Provided that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contraction of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this subsection shall have effect, as if, for the words "one year", the words "five years" were substituted." 6. Undisputedly, the revenue has not taken action against the assessee within the period of one year from the relevant date. What is that relevant date in the given facts and circumstances, is not in dispute, for it is the date on which the goods were cleared, i.e. date of clearance of goods/filing of monthly returns. Both events incidentally fall within the same month, which in the instant case, was February, 2008. We clarify that such fact is not disputed by anyone of the parties before us. It is also a matter of record that in July, 2009 itself, the assessee had apprised the department of revenue, by way of a declaration, as envisaged under the Act/Rules/ Regulations, indicating its intent of taking benefit of Notification dated 10.06.2003. 7. Thus far, it is clear that assessee had made evident its intent of availing the benefits under the Act, in accordance with law. 8. 7. Thus far, it is clear that assessee had made evident its intent of availing the benefits under the Act, in accordance with law. 8. It is also not in dispute that only after the statutory period of one year having come to an end, but prior to five years, did the revenue initiate proceedings against the assessee with the issuance of show cause notice dated 19th of April, 2011. 9. The question which needs to be examined is as to whether it was open for the revenue/authorities to have done so? Is it a case where the assessee had indulged in an act of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement/suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. 10. We find the Tribunal to have adequately taken note of the factual situation and applied the provisions of law, in arriving at its conclusion, that the revenue had failed to make out its case, falling within any one of the exceptions stipulated in the proviso to the main Section. We are in agreement with such findings. 11. We also notice that under identical circumstances, the Apex Court in case titled as Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Versus Collector of Central Excise, Bombay , (1995) Supp3 SCC 462 has explained under what circumstances proviso to the Section can be invoked by the revenue, for taking benefit of the extended period of limitation up to five years. The Apex Court explained that in normal understanding, contravention of any of the provisions of the Act cannot be read separately, in isolation or differently, that of the accompanying words, such as fraud, collusion or willful default. Further, "the acts so as to constitute anyone of the exceptions must be deliberate and that in taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression." 12. It is under these circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with and set aside order dated 13.07.2015, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, Principal Bench, New Delhi. It is under these circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with and set aside order dated 13.07.2015, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Also the question of law sought to be answered is well settled and no longer res integra. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s) , if any.