Extended limitation cannot apply without suppression or misdeclaration where processing details were disclosed in advance.

Advance disclosure of goods sent for processing under Rule 57F(3) meant the assessee had not concealed the nature of the transaction, and the accompanying letter and form showed that processing would be undertaken. The department could not establish deliberate suppression or a false declaration merely because officers may not have understood the technical meaning of the term used. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable, and the additional duty demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of additional duty was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or misdeclaration by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had informed the department in advance that the goods would be sent for processing under Rule 57F(3), and the letter as well as the accompanying form disclosed the nature of the process and the resultant goods. Although the departmental officers may not have understood the technical significance of the term used, the assessee had not concealed the fact that the fabrics would undergo processing. On the materials on record, the department could not establish deliberate suppression or a false declaration so as to invoke the extended period. The demand, therefore, could not survive on limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department and the demand was time-barred.

---