Extended limitation cannot rest on mere non-payment after assessment unless suppression with intent to evade duty is shown.

Where a bill of entry had already been filed and assessed by the proper officer without objection to countervailing duty or special additional duty, a later demand could not rely on the extended limitation period merely because duty had not been paid. The non-payment was treated as a mistake and lack of knowledge, not suppression with intent to evade duty, so the longer period of limitation was unavailable to the Revenue. The demand was therefore time-barred and the extended limitation period was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised in the show cause notice was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the ground of suppression.

Analysis: The bill of entry had been filed and assessed by the proper officer long before the show cause notice. No objection was raised at the stage of assessment that countervailing duty or special additional duty was payable. In these circumstances, the non-payment was treated as a mistake and lack of knowledge, not as suppression with intent to evade duty, and the longer limitation period was held unavailable to the Revenue.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant import document has been assessed by the proper officer without objection, a later demand cannot invoke the extended period merely on the basis of non-payment of duty unless suppression with intent to evade is established.

---