Limitation bar on differential duty demand where suppression was absent from the original notice and added later by corrigendum.

Differential duty demand was treated as time-barred because the original show cause notice did not invoke the extended limitation period, and the allegation of suppression was added only by corrigendum. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the dispute was already within departmental knowledge and that suppression could not be fastened on the assessee. The Tribunal found no basis to disturb that finding and, because limitation barred the demand, it did not examine the merits of the duty demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation in the absence of an allegation of suppression in the original show cause notice, and whether the Tribunal should interfere with the order dropping the demand.

Analysis: The original show cause notice did not invoke the extended period of limitation. The allegation invoking the proviso was introduced only through a corrigendum. On this basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the dispute was already within the department's knowledge and that suppression could not be fastened on the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb that finding and, in view of the limitation bar, did not enter into the merits of the demand.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the appeal was dismissed.

---