Disclosure of invoices with returns defeats suppression and blocks extended limitation for Modvat credit denial.

Disclosure of invoices for capital goods along with RT-12 returns, coupled with defacement by the Range Officer, negated any allegation of suppression of facts for denial of Modvat credit. On those facts, the Department was already aware of the financing arrangements and could not invoke the extended period of limitation absent proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. The demand was therefore treated as time-barred, and the extended limitation period was held inapplicable. The order was set aside on limitation, and the appeal succeeded without examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for denial of Modvat credit was barred by limitation on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The invoices for the capital goods were filed with RT-12 returns and showed the financing companies as well as the assessee. The Department was therefore aware that the capital goods on which credit was taken were financed under the stated arrangements. Where the relevant invoices are disclosed to the Department and are also defaced by the Range Officer, suppression of facts cannot be alleged. In such circumstances, the extended period can be invoked only on proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression, which was absent here.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not invokable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on limitation, and the appeal succeeded without examination of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Disclosure of the relevant invoices along with RT-12 returns negatives suppression of facts and prevents invocation of the extended limitation period.

---