Suppression and extended limitation could not support a duty demand when product details were already disclosed and known to the department.

Duty demand based on suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable where the product description had been disclosed in the assessee's balance sheets over a long period and the department had already scrutinised the same goods in earlier classification disputes and show cause notices. In that factual setting, there was no material basis to infer misdeclaration or concealment with intent to evade duty, because the department was already aware of the product identity. The invocation of suppression and the extended limitation period was rejected, and the duty demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty could be sustained by invoking suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The product description had been disclosed in the assessee's balance sheets over a long period and the department had repeatedly scrutinised the same goods in earlier classification disputes and show cause notices. In that background, the allegation that the assessee had misdeclared the goods or suppressed material facts with intent to evade duty was not sustainable, and the record showed that the department was already aware of the identity of the product.

Conclusion: The invocation of suppression and the extended period of limitation was rejected and the duty demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---