Extended limitation for customs duty fails absent suppression, with no substantial question of law for appeal.

Extended limitation for recovering customs duty cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression, collusion or wilful misstatement. The authorities found no such material; the shortage was marginal and had been disclosed by the assessee, so the demand was time-barred. The High Court also declined interference because the concurrent factual findings disclosed no jurisdictional error and did not raise any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of customs duty and allied consequences were barred by limitation in the absence of proof of suppression, collusion or willful misstatement, and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The authorities below concurrently found that the Department had not produced evidence of suppression, collusion or any mala fide conduct on the part of the assessee. The shortage noticed was marginal and had been identified after the assessee informed the Department. In the absence of material to justify invocation of the extended period, the demand was held to be time-barred. The High Court also found no jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings and held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Conclusion: The demand was rightly held to be barred by limitation, and the appeal was not entertainable for want of any substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation for recovering customs duty cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression, collusion or willful misstatement, and concurrent factual findings on limitation will not be disturbed in the absence of a substantial question of law.

---