Extended limitation for Cenvat credit denied where invoices and supporting certificates showed bona fide compliance and no intent to evade.

Extended limitation could not be invoked to deny Cenvat credit merely because the service tax element was not separately shown in invoices, where the credit related to architect-issued invoices for consulting engineer services and later certificates confirmed that tax had been paid. The record showed a bona fide belief that the invoices were cum-tax and that reasonable steps had been taken to ensure tax payment by the service providers. On those facts, there was no material to infer intention to evade or suppression, so the extended period of limitation was held unsustainable and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to deny Cenvat credit on the ground that the service tax element was not shown separately in the invoices.

Analysis: The credit claim arose from invoices issued by architects in respect of consulting engineer services, and the service providers later produced certificates showing that service tax had been paid. In one instance, the final invoice also reflected separate service tax payment. On these facts, the availment of credit was found to have been made under a bona fide belief that the invoiced amount was cum-tax, and the assessee had taken reasonable steps to ensure payment of tax by the service providers. In such circumstances, the record did not support an inference of intention to evade or suppression of the availment of credit so as to justify the extended period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not sustainable, and the appeal was allowed on limitation grounds with consequential relief.

---