Limitation in duty demand fails where import declarations were accepted and no suppression with intent to evade is shown.

Import declarations describing the goods as betel nuts, consistent with the invoices, were accepted by the proper officer, and the omission of the botanical name was not treated as material. In the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore held to be time-barred, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

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

Analysis: The goods were imported and declared in the import documents as betel nuts in accordance with the invoices. The show-cause notice was issued thereafter alleging suppression. On the facts recorded, the declaration made by the respondent was accepted by the proper officer, and the mention of the botanical name was not considered necessary. In the absence of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---