Limitation for duty demand: open exports under bond without fraud or suppression kept the extended period unavailable.

Exports made openly under bond, with Central Excise authorities supervising examination and clearance, did not amount to fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement. On those facts, the longer limitation period for duty demand could not be invoked, because the record showed no deliberate concealment or conscious evasion; the absence of penalty was consistent with that conclusion. The normal six months' limitation therefore applied, and demands raised beyond that period were time-barred. The assessee succeeded on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demands of duty and penalty were barred by limitation on the ground that there was no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement by the exporters in exporting goods under bond.

Analysis: The exports were made openly under bond with the knowledge and supervision of the Central Excise authorities, and the goods were examined and cleared in the course of export. On these facts, the alleged contravention could not be treated as deliberate evasion or concealment so as to justify invocation of the longer limitation period. The absence of penalty was also inconsistent with the allegation of conscious fraud or suppression. In these circumstances, the normal six months' limitation applied to the notices, and the demands falling outside that period could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demands were time-barred; the assessee succeeded.

---