Limitation and extended period on alleged misdeclaration fail where movement of goods was known and no suppression was shown.

Removal of goods under the export policy procedure, with permission of the Assistant Commissioner and production of rewarehousing certificates, did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period. Although the department alleged misdeclaration that the raw materials were defective, the record showed that it was aware of the movement and return of the goods, so there was no suppression of facts sufficient to sustain a time-bar exception. The demand was therefore held barred by limitation, and the Revenue could not invoke the extended period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of misdeclaration that the raw materials were defective.

Analysis: The goods were removed after permission of the Assistant Commissioner and the necessary rewarehousing certificates were produced. The only allegation was that the goods were not defective as claimed, but the record showed that the department was aware of the movement and return of the goods under the export policy procedure. In these circumstances, even assuming the goods were not defective, the facts did not justify invocation of the extended period, as there was no suppression sufficient to sustain a time-bar exception.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation and the extended period was not available to the Revenue.

---