Extended limitation for Modvat credit fails where monthly returns already disclosed the relevant input details and no suppression was shown.

Incomplete Rule 57G declarations did not, by themselves, justify invocation of the extended limitation period for Modvat credit demand where the assessee had maintained input details in index cards and RG-23A Part-I and had regularly furnished RT-12 returns to the Department. Because the relevant information was already available in documents routinely filed and assessed over time, the alleged inadequacy of the initial declaration could not establish suppression. On that basis, recourse to the extended period failed and the demand was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of Modvat credit could be sustained by invoking the extended period on the allegation of suppression, where the assessee had filed incomplete declarations under Rule 57G but had also furnished monthly RT-12 returns and RG-23A extracts to the Department.

Analysis: The assessee's declaration under Rule 57G was found to be inadequate, but the record showed that detailed particulars of the inputs were maintained in index cards, entered in the RG-23A Part-I register, and reflected in the RT-12 returns filed every month. Those returns were assessed by the Department. In such circumstances, the Department could not rely only on the alleged inadequacy of the initial declaration to infer suppression, especially when the relevant information was already available in another document routinely furnished to the Department. The continued acceptance of the assessments for years, despite the alleged lacuna, negatived the charge of suppression and barred recourse to the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the invocation of suppression failed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---