Extended limitation under Customs law requires specific allegations of suppression or fraud; demand failed on limitation.

Extended limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained unless the show cause notice specifically alleges suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty. Here, the import bills were filed in 2003, the notice was issued in 2005, and the notice did not contain the necessary factual foundation for invoking the extended period. The demand was therefore time-barred to the extent it relied on extended limitation, and the appeal succeeded on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand proposed in the show cause notice was barred by limitation and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The import bills were filed between 09.04.2003 and 04.06.2003, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 19.12.2005. The notice proposed demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, but did not specifically set out suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty so as to justify the extended limitation period. On the record, the invocation of the extended period was not supported by the notice and could not sustain.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred to the extent it rested on the extended period, and the appeal succeeded on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked in the absence of a proper allegation in the show cause notice supporting suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty.

---