Extended limitation for duty demand fails absent proven suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.

Imported goods declared as betel nuts and assessed accordingly could not attract the extended limitation period without proved suppression of facts or deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. The mere use of the botanical name "areca nuts" did not establish suppression, and the record did not support invocation of the extended period. The demand was therefore held time-barred, and the limitation finding was upheld in favour of the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of alleged suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.

Analysis: The imported goods were declared as betel nuts in the import documents and were assessed accordingly by the proper officer. The show-cause notice was issued after the relevant imports, but the record did not establish suppression of facts by the respondent or any deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. The mere reference to the botanical name of betel nuts as areca nuts did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was rightly held to be time-barred. The finding on limitation was upheld in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are declared in accordance with the import documents and assessed by the proper officer, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked in the absence of proved suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---