Extended limitation for duty demand fails absent suppression with intent to evade duty, making the penalty unsustainable.

Duty demand and penalty were held time barred because suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. The assessee had disclosed product particulars, composition, manufacturing process, literature and end use to the department, and the department did not show that the disputed products differed from those disclosed or that their composition changed during the relevant period. The approved classification declaration further supported the assessee's disclosure. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable, and the penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty were barred by limitation on the ground that the assessee had suppressed material facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished the department with product particulars, composition, manufacturing process, literature and end use in its letter dated 28-6-1994. The department did not show that the products in dispute were different from those covered by that disclosure or that their composition had changed during the relevant period. The classification declaration filed from 16-3-1995 was approved with the benefit of the amended notification. In these circumstances, the earlier disclosure could not be ignored, and the element of suppression with intent to evade duty was not established so as to justify the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was time barred and the penalty was unsustainable.

---