Limitation for duty demand turns on proof of suppression, not mere wrong classification, where the legal position is debatable.

Duty demands beyond the normal limitation period cannot rely on the extended period unless the Revenue proves deliberate suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. Where the classification of tread rubber was debatable, a tariff note supported the assessee's view, and the departmental stand was inconsistent, the legal position was not clear enough to infer suppression from mere non-payment or an incorrect classification view. The extended period was therefore not available, and the demand was treated as time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation on account of absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The demand related to a period beyond the normal limitation period. The classification dispute regarding tread rubber, the existence of a tariff note supporting the assessee's view, and the inconsistency in the departmental stand showed that the legal position was debatable. In such circumstances, mere non-payment of duty or an incorrect view of classification could not be treated as deliberate suppression. The conditions for invoking the extended period were therefore not established.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not invocable; this was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legal position is doubtful and the assessee's classification view is supported by the tariff structure, the extended period cannot be invoked unless the Revenue proves deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement.

---