Limitation bars differential customs duty demand where concession was allowed at import and suppression was not properly alleged.

Differential customs duty demand under Notification No. 232/83-Cus. was held time barred because the goods had already been cleared at the concessional rate, the demand was issued more than two years later, and the notices did not clearly invoke suppression of facts or any proper basis for extended limitation. The dispute was resolved on limitation alone, and the exemption benefit allowed at import was not liable to be denied on the ground adopted by the adjudicating authority. The demand could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential customs duty under Notification No. 232/83-Cus. was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The imported goods had already been cleared at the concessional rate after assessment by the customs authorities. The demand was raised more than two years later, and the notices did not contain any clear invocation of penal consequences or a proper basis for alleging suppression of facts so as to justify the extended period. In these circumstances, the dispute could be resolved on limitation alone without entering into the other questions. The exemption had in fact been allowed at the time of import, and the record did not warrant denial of the benefit on the ground considered by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The demand was time barred and could not be sustained. The appeal succeeded.

---