Extended limitation under Rule 57-I fails absent suppression and intent to evade duty in duty demand cases.

The extended period of limitation under Rule 57-I was not available where the notice failed to identify specific suppressed facts and the clearances were already reflected in gate passes, RG 23A entries and monthly RT-12 extracts. As the goods were cleared to a sister concern and no material suggesting intent to evade duty was shown, the statutory requirement for invoking the extended period was not established. The demand was therefore time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Rule 57-I could be invoked for the demand of differential duty on clearance of steel sheets and whether the demand was therefore time-barred.

Analysis: The notice did not specify the particular material facts allegedly suppressed by the assessee. The record showed that the clearances were reflected through gate passes, debit entries in the RG 23A register, and the monthly extracts accompanying the RT-12 return, and there was no allegation that these disclosures were not made. The goods were also cleared to the assessee's sister concern, so there was no apparent motive to evade duty. In these circumstances, the ingredient of intent to evade duty required for the extended period under Rule 57-I was not established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

---