Extended limitation in customs law fails where the Department already knew the relevant facts and no suppression is shown.

A customs demand arising from temporary removal and re-import of goods from an SEZ unit was held time-barred because the show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period and rested only on extended limitation. Since the export, re-import and temporary removal were already within the Department's knowledge throughout the relevant period, there was no basis to allege suppression or other culpable conduct needed to sustain the extended period. The notice was therefore unsustainable, and the demand could not be upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice demanding customs duty was barred by limitation and whether invocation of the extended period was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute related to temporary removal and re-import of goods from an SEZ unit. The Tribunal noted that the export, re-import and temporary removal activities were within the knowledge of the Department throughout the relevant period. The show-cause notice was issued after the normal period of two years from the relevant date, and the demand had been raised only by invoking the extended period. In the absence of any sustainable basis to treat the case as one involving suppression or other ingredients necessary for extended limitation, the notice could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the show-cause notice was found unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts were already within the Department's knowledge, the extended period of limitation under customs law could not be invoked in the absence of suppression or similar culpable conduct.

---