Extended limitation under customs law requires proof of fraud, suppression or intent to evade duty before longer period can apply

The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Customs Act applies only where the Revenue proves fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intentional contravention to evade duty. Strict construction of the proviso requires more than departmental ignorance or the mere fact that units fell under the same division. The Tribunal's limitation finding was held unsustainable because it did not test the facts against those statutory ingredients, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination on whether the extended period could validly be invoked.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked on the facts found, and whether the Tribunal's limitation finding was sustainable.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 11A(1) permits the longer limitation period only where non-levy or short-levy is attributable to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of statutory provisions with intent to evade duty. The burden initially lies on the Revenue to establish the existence of these ingredients, and the extended period must be construed strictly. Mere absence of awareness on the part of the department, or a conclusion based only on the fact that the units were under the same division, does not satisfy the statutory requirements. The Tribunal's reasoning did not test the case against the ingredients of the proviso and therefore did not correctly apply the statutory standard.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's limitation finding was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh determination on whether the conditions for invoking the extended period were made out; the Revenue succeeded on this aspect.

---