Extended limitation under Section 11A fails without proof of suppression, misdeclaration, or clandestine removal.

The extended limitation period under Section 11A was unavailable because the show cause notice contained no specific allegation of suppression of facts, misdeclaration, or clandestine removal, and mala fide intent to evade duty was not established on the record. The bond relied on by the Revenue was not produced, and the alleged bond under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. could not be traced. In the absence of material to disturb the finding on limitation, the demand was held time-barred and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under Section 11A was available in the absence of any allegation or proof of suppression, misdeclaration, or clandestine removal.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not contain any specific allegation of suppression of facts or clandestine removal. Though mala fide intention to evade duty was mentioned, it was not established on record. The adjudicating authority had found that, in the absence of specified misdeclaration or suppression, the extended period of five years under Section 11A was unavailable. The bond relied upon by the Revenue was not produced, and the record showed that the alleged bond under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. could not be traced. No material was therefore available to disturb the findings on limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period under Section 11A was not available; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---