Extended limitation for duty demand requires positive suppression or intent to evade; mere non-filing of declarations is insufficient.

Extended limitation for recovery of duty could not be invoked merely because the assessee had not obtained a licence or filed declarations. CESTAT held that section 11A(1) requires positive fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. As the record showed no such deliberate suppression or misdeclaration, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, the demand was time-barred. The appeal succeeded on limitation and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty on the intermediate product could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation in the absence of positive suppression or mis-declaration.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the premise that the assessee had not obtained licence and had not filed the requisite declarations. The Tribunal held that mere non-filing of registration or declarations, by itself, is not sufficient to invoke the longer period. For the extended period under section 11A(1), there must be fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The record disclosed no positive act of suppression or mis-declaration, and the show cause notice had been issued beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not justified and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on limitation and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation for recovery of duty cannot be invoked merely for non-filing of licence or declarations; it requires positive suppression or other conduct showing intent to evade duty.

---