Limitation for customs demand failed where import details were disclosed and no suppression justified extended period

Demand and penalty were held to be barred by limitation because the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the record did not show suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The goods were described as consumables in both the EPCG licence and the bills of entry, and the dispute arose from interpretation of the exemption notification rather than concealment of material facts. On that basis, invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the demand was treated as time-barred. The limitation finding was sustained, and the Revenue did not press any specific limitation ground in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty were barred by limitation, the show cause notice having been issued beyond the normal period on the basis of an alleged suppression or misdeclaration.

Analysis: The imports were made during 2007-2008 and the show cause notice was issued on 25.03.2011 invoking the extended period. The description of the goods as consumables was disclosed in the EPCG licence as well as in the bills of entry. The dispute arose from interpretation of the exemption notification and not from concealment of material facts. In these circumstances, there was no suppression of facts or misdeclaration to justify invocation of the extended period. The Revenue also did not press any specific limitation ground in appeal.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the impugned order was correctly sustained on limitation.

---