Extended limitation requires actual suppression; an incorrect classification claim alone does not justify a time-bar override.

Misdeclaration or suppression cannot be inferred merely because an assessee claimed a classification later found incorrect by Revenue, where the Rule 173B declarations disclosed the goods and the product description was not concealed. On that basis, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and a notice issued beyond the normal period could not sustain the demand. The demand was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged misdeclaration and suppression of facts in the declarations filed under Rule 173B, and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The declarations filed by the assessee disclosed the goods and the classification claimed by them, and there was no finding that the product description had been concealed. A classification claimed on the assessee's understanding, if found incorrect by the Revenue, did not by itself amount to suppression of facts or justify invocation of the longer limitation period. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal period, the demand could not survive once the foundation for extended limitation failed.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was unjustified and the demand was barred by limitation.

---