Extended limitation needs proof of suppression with intent to evade duty; absent such material, the demand fails.

The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless the record shows suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Goods were cleared to a sister concern on payment of duty under a valuation method later examined on remand, and the demand was substantially reduced after application of the costing principle. As a prior decision in the same assessee's similar dispute had already found no intent to evade duty, and no material established deliberate suppression, the allegation of suppression failed. The finding of suppression with intent to evade duty was therefore unsustainable, and the extended limitation period was not invocable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of material showing suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The goods were cleared to a sister concern on payment of duty after adopting a valuation method for determining assessable value. The demand was substantially reduced in remand after application of the costing principle. In the earlier decision in the same assessee's case on a similar issue, there was already an observation that no intent to evade duty was made out. On the record, no material was found to support the allegation of deliberate suppression or intention to evade payment of duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the finding of suppression with intent to evade duty was unsustainable.

---