Extended limitation for Cenvat credit denial requires suppression and intent to evade; disclosed returns defeated Revenue's case.

Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny Cenvat credit where the credit was disclosed in monthly returns and there is no suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. Omission of a separate column describing the service was not treated as suppression, and the dispute was also characterised as one of legal interpretation without mens rea. On that basis, the longer limitation period was held unavailable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for denial of Cenvat credit when the credit availed was reflected in the monthly returns and there was no finding of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The credit availed by the assessee was disclosed in the monthly returns. The absence of a separate column describing the particular service could not be treated as suppression by the assessee. Invocation of the longer limitation period required suppression of facts or misstatement coupled with intent to evade duty. The original adjudicating authority had also recorded that the matter involved interpretation of law and that no mens rea was involved.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---