Customs duty limitation fails where suppression is not specifically pleaded and departmental knowledge is not shown.

Extended limitation for a customs duty demand requires specific facts showing suppression of material information and disclosure of when the department acquired knowledge of the alleged contravention. A bald allegation in the notice, without particulars of what was withheld, is insufficient, especially where the record also does not address clearance after customs scrutiny under Section 47 of the Customs Act. The demand relating to 1989-90 imports, raised only in 1994, was therefore held time barred; the extended period was unavailable and the duty demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of customs duty was barred by limitation on the ground that the ingredients for invoking the extended period, particularly suppression of facts, were not established.

Analysis: The demand related to imports made in 1989-90, but the show cause notice was issued only in 1994. The notice contained only a bald allegation of suppression without specifying what material facts were withheld. The order also did not deal with the defence that the goods had been cleared by customs after scrutiny under Section 47 of the Customs Act. No particulars were given as to when the department gained knowledge that the consignments had allegedly been sold to non-existing firms, even though such knowledge was necessary to justify the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demand was time barred. The appeal was allowed and the duty demand was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot be sustained under the extended limitation period unless the notice and adjudication disclose specific facts constituting suppression and show when the department acquired knowledge of the alleged contravention.

---