Modvat credit and limitation: extended period cannot be invoked without proof of knowledge or suppression by the assessee.

Modvat credit and related penalty could not be denied by invoking the extended period of limitation merely because the assessee allegedly failed to take further steps beyond verifying the dealers' identity and address. The Tribunal noted that the department did not show the dealers were fictitious or unavailable at the stated addresses, and the invoices contained the relevant particulars. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, the extended period required proof that the assessee knew, or had reason to know, that the goods were not duty paid, or had suppressed material facts. In the absence of such material, the extended period was not invocable and the denial of credit and penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit and the consequential penalty could be denied by invoking the extended period of limitation on the footing that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs were duty paid.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the rule relied upon for penalty was directed to the taking of reasonable steps, and the appellant had satisfied the requirement by verifying the identity and address of the dealers. The department did not show that the dealers were fictitious or not functioning at the stated addresses. On the credit issue, however, credit is available only when duty is shown to have been paid. Since the notice was issued well beyond the normal limitation period, the extended period could be sustained only on proof that the appellant knew, or had reason to know, that the goods were not duty paid. The invoices disclosed the essential particulars and there was no material to show knowledge on the appellant's part or any suppression of relevant facts. Mere failure to verify transactions beyond the dealers was not a requirement of the rule.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the denial of credit and penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, leaving the assessee entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of material showing knowledge or suppression by the assessee, Modvat credit cannot be denied by invoking the extended period of limitation merely because the department alleges inadequate verification of the dealers.

---