Extended limitation under section 11A fails where valuation basis is fully disclosed and no suppression with intent to evade is shown.

Full disclosure of the valuation basis and contemporaneous price declarations prevented invocation of the extended limitation period under section 11A, because the department was already aware of the method adopted and there was no misstatement or suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. As the notice was issued beyond the normal period, the duty demand was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal did not examine the merits of valuation and set aside the duty demand, penalty, interest, and confiscation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and consequential penalties were barred by limitation on the facts disclosed to the department.

Analysis: The appellants had disclosed the basis of valuation through correspondence and price declarations, including the use of comparable goods and the revised declarations filed from time to time. The record showed that the department was aware of the method adopted for valuation during the relevant period. In the absence of misstatement or suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, the extended period under section 11A could not be invoked. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal period, the demand was not sustainable. The Tribunal therefore did not enter into the merits of valuation.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was barred by limitation and the invocation of the extended period failed; the impugned duty demand, penalty, interest, and confiscation were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has made full disclosure of the valuation basis and the department is aware of the material facts, the extended period of limitation under section 11A cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression with intent to evade duty.

---