Limitation in import duty demand turns on absence of suppression where goods were disclosed in import documents.

A limitation defence succeeded because the import records described the goods as betel nuts, and the record did not show suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Revenue's later case that the goods were actually areca nuts and that an exemption notification was wrongly claimed was not enough to extend the limitation period. The demand was therefore treated as time barred, and the appeal was dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The goods were imported and described in the invoices and import documents as betel nuts. The demand was raised later on the Revenue's case that the goods were actually areca nuts and that the respondent had wrongly claimed the benefit of notification. As the description in the import documents disclosed the goods as betel nuts and the botanical name was not shown to be necessary, the record did not support suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The demand was time barred and the appeal was dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---