Limitation on duty demand fails where invoicing practice and clearances were disclosed to the department.

Separate invoices for CPUs, peripherals and software were treated as a disclosed clearance practice, and the record showed that the department had been informed of this arrangement in 1983. Because the relevant facts were not suppressed and the department was on notice of the manner of clearance, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the assessee's limitation objection succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice and consequent duty demand were barred by limitation on the ground that the assessee had disclosed its invoicing practice and the nature of the clearances to the department.

Analysis: The assessee had been issuing separate invoices for CPUs, peripherals and software and had produced material indicating that this practice was intimated to the department in 1983. The disclosure was treated as genuine, and the record did not support the allegation that the relevant facts were suppressed. Once the department had been put on notice of the manner of clearance, the foundation for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was absent.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the limitation plea succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---