Limitation and extended period cannot be invoked without suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

The demand and penalties were held to be time-barred because the department had already received the relevant records and explanations during audit, including the basis of clearance and precautions for deemed export transactions. On the facts, there was no established suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, so invocation of the extended period was unsustainable. The impugned order was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalties were barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had furnished records and explanations during the departmental audit, including communications explaining the basis of clearance and the precautions adopted for deemed export transactions. The alleged grounds were already within the department's knowledge during audit, and the show cause notice was issued only after a long delay. The record did not establish suppression of facts or any intent to evade duty. In the absence of such proof, invocation of the extended period was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the impugned order could not be sustained.

---