Extended limitation cannot apply without proven mis-description in classification of goods, making the duty demand time-barred.

Mis-description of goods in a classification list can justify the extended limitation period only where a mis-statement or mis-declaration is actually shown. Here, watch crystals were treated as watch glasses on the basis of departmental circular guidance and dictionary meaning, so the alleged mis-description was not accepted. With the factual foundation for invoking the longer limitation period absent, the duty demand was held time-barred and could not survive. The classification question was left unanswered as unnecessary for disposal, and the appeal succeeded with the demand set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of mis-description of the goods in the classification list.

Analysis: The goods described as watch crystals were held to be watch glasses, supported by the meaning given in the departmental circular and dictionary usage. On that basis, the finding of mis-description recorded by the adjudicating authority was not accepted. Since the premise for invoking the longer period was absent, the demand could not survive on limitation.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was barred by time and the extended period of limitation was not available to the department.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand was set aside, while the classification issue was left unanswered as unnecessary for disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the description of goods is not shown to be a mis-statement or mis-declaration, the extended limitation period for duty demand cannot be invoked.

---