Extended limitation period fails where duty dispute turns on classification and interpretation, not suppression or intent to evade

Longer limitation period is unavailable where a duty demand arises from classification and duty-liability interpretation rather than deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. The note states that an earlier departmental view does not bind the Bench in de novo consideration, and that the dispute's shifting legal position supports treating the demand as time-barred. On that basis, the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the longer period of limitation.

Analysis: The demand covered an earlier period and the dispute turned on classification and duty liability in a setting where the applicable legal position had been viewed differently at various stages. In such circumstances, the longer period could not be invoked, as the matter involved interpretation rather than deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. The earlier view relied upon by the Department did not bind the Bench in the de novo consideration.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

---