Extended limitation for duty demand fails without evidence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

A duty demand relating to transactions from October to December 2000 was held time-barred because the extended limitation period was invoked only after audit objections raised years later, and the record did not show suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The absence of cogent material supporting mala fide conduct meant the department could not justify extending limitation, especially where it had an opportunity to verify the transactions within the normal period. The proposed penalty was also dropped, reinforcing that the demand could not be sustained as within limitation. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand for the period October 2000 to December 2000 was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked in the absence of evidence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The demand arose from audit objections raised in 2008 in relation to transactions of 2000, and the show cause notice was issued in 2010. The record did not disclose cogent material establishing suppression of facts or mala fide intent to evade duty. The invocation of the extended period was unsupported, and the dropping of the proposed penalty also reinforced that the demand could not be sustained as within limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the invocation of the extended period was rejected. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for duty demand without evidence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, particularly where the department had sufficient opportunity to verify the transactions within the normal limitation period.

---