Extended limitation cannot apply without deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty in imperfect classification cases.

Mere non-disclosure or imperfect classification does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation unless there is deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. On the facts, runners and risers were treated by the assessee as eligible for a reduced rate under an exemption notification, based on their perceived similarity to ingots when no tariff definition was available. The omission in the classification list was not accepted as evidence of evasion, so the duty demand was held time-barred and the extended limitation period was rejected. The appeal was allowed on limitation, and no further issues were adjudicated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation in the absence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the question of time bar. The record indicated that runners and risers were treated by the assessee as eligible for the reduced rate under the exemption notification, on the understanding that they were comparable to ingots in the absence of a tariff definition at the relevant time. The omission in the classification list was not accepted as proof of a deliberate attempt to evade duty. In these circumstances, the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, leaving no further adjudication on the remaining contentions.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-disclosure or imperfect classification, without deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, is insufficient to justify the extended period of limitation.

---