Limitation in classification disputes turns on disclosure and absence of suppression; extended period not justified on these facts.

A classification dispute that had already been litigated before different forums was treated as interpretational, not as evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. The assessee had disclosed the relevant duty details in its returns and paid the differential duty immediately when pointed out, so the extended limitation period was not available. On those facts, the demand was barred by limitation and was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

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

Analysis: The products were subject to a classification dispute which had been litigated before different forums, showing that the matter was interpretational in nature. The assessee had reflected the relevant duty details in the returns and, on being pointed out, paid the differential duty immediately. In these circumstances, the element of suppression or intention to evade duty was not made out, and the extended period was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand was rightly set aside on limitation, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---