Extended limitation cannot be invoked for an interpretational duty dispute where records were already disclosed and bona fide belief was shown.

A duty dispute over the applicability of Notification No. 6/2002-CE to safety matches cleared after purchasing dipped match splints was treated as interpretational, not fraudulent. Because the relevant invoices and records were already available to the department, no fresh material emerged to justify a longer limitation period, and the assessee's bona fide belief was accepted. The ingredients for invoking the extended period were therefore not established, so the demand was held time-barred and the order dropping it on limitation was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked against the assessee.

Analysis: The dispute centred on the applicability of Notification No. 6/2002-CE to safety matches cleared after purchasing dipped match splints, and the record showed that the controversy was interpretational in nature. The materials furnished through invoices were already available to the department, and no new evidence had been unearthed to found the demand. In these circumstances, the assessee's plea of bona fide belief was accepted and the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were held not to be established.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals failed, and the order dropping the demand on limitation was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a duty dispute turns on an interpretational controversy and all relevant facts are already disclosed to the department through records and invoices, the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of wilful suppression or intent to evade duty.

---