Extended limitation for duty demand cannot apply without suppression when cost data and monthly returns were already disclosed.

The extended period of limitation for demanding differential duty could not be invoked where the relevant cost data had already been furnished to the Department and the assessee continued filing monthly returns. On those facts, the Department had the material needed to compute the duty within the normal period, and there was no basis to allege suppression of facts. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the invocation of the extended period was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding differential duty.

Analysis: The relevant cost data had been furnished to the Department in 2002 and the assessee had been filing monthly returns. In these circumstances, the Department had the material necessary to compute the duty within the normal period, and there was no justification for alleging suppression of facts so as to trigger the extended period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable and the demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

---