Extended limitation under customs law requires proof of suppression or wilful misstatement; unsupported allegations were insufficient.

The extended period of limitation under the Customs Act could be invoked only if suppression or wilful misstatement was proved. The notice alleged deliberate non-disclosure of input-stage credit and false declarations, but the shipping bill and AR4 forms contained no statement on Modvat credit and no supporting evidence established suppression. The basis for the extended limitation period therefore failed, and the Revenue could not rely on the proviso to Section 28(1).

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked on the allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The notice alleged that the importer had deliberately suppressed the availment of input-stage credit and had made false declarations in shipping documents. The documentary material produced showed that the shipping bill and AR4 forms did not contain any statement regarding Modvat credit. In the absence of supporting evidence, the allegation of suppression or misstatement was not proved. The basis for invoking the extended limitation period therefore failed.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

---