Limitation in duty demands turns on disclosed facts and genuine classification disputes, not mere incorrect exemption claims.

Extended limitation for duty demand was unavailable where the assessee had disclosed its Chapter 39 classification in declarations and classification lists, and the Revenue identified no specific undisclosed fact amounting to suppression. An incorrect classification or exemption claim, without more, did not establish intent to evade duty. Prior appellate orders accepting the same classification reinforced the assessee's bona fide belief, and a later Board circular changing the classification view could not justify recovery for an earlier period when the relevant facts were already within the Revenue's knowledge. The demand was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty for the past period was barred by limitation on the ground that the show cause notice invoked the extended period on allegations of suppression and misdeclaration.

Analysis: The goods had been classified by the assessee under Chapter 39 in declarations and classification lists filed before the department, and the Revenue had not shown any specific non-disclosed fact amounting to suppression. A mere incorrect claim of classification or exemption does not, by itself, establish suppression with intent to evade duty. The existence of prior appellate orders accepting the same classification, coupled with the fact that the departmental notice was issued after the Board's circular changing the classification view, supported the assessee's bona fide belief. The circular could operate only prospectively and could not justify recovery for the earlier period when the relevant facts were within the Revenue's knowledge.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available and the demand was time-barred.

---