Limitation for CENVAT credit demand failed where statutory records showed disclosure and no suppression or concealment.

CENVAT credit dispute over rejected material turned on limitation, with the notice issued after the normal period. Because the receipt and credit entries were reflected in the statutory RG-23A registers, there was no concealment, suppression, or misstatement by the assessee. The dispute was therefore treated as a bona fide disagreement on credit eligibility, which meant the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The demand was consequently held time-barred and the impugned order was set aside on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked when the assessee had made entries in the statutory records.

Analysis: The credit dispute arose from the assessee's treatment of rejected material and the department issued the notice beyond the normal limitation period. The entries relating to receipt and credit were recorded in the RG-23A registers, which negatived any allegation of mala fide conduct, suppression, or misstatement. In these circumstances, the dispute was treated as a bona fide one on eligibility of credit, and the absence of concealment meant that the longer limitation period was unavailable.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the impugned order was set aside on limitation.

---