Extended limitation for Cenvat credit demand fails where the dispute is interpretative and no suppression or evasion is shown.

The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked where the dispute concerns statutory interpretation and the record does not establish fraud, collusion, misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. In this case, capital goods were transferred between units under job work challans, and the earlier round had already treated the matter as an interpretative controversy rather than one involving deliberate evasion. Because the show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, the demand for Cenvat credit and the associated penalties were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for the demand of Cenvat credit and consequential penalties.

Analysis: The capital goods had been transferred between the two units under job work challans, and the earlier round of litigation had already treated the controversy as one of statutory interpretation and had negatived allegations of fraud, collusion, misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. In that background, the show-cause notice having been issued beyond the normal period, the foundation for invoking the longer limitation period did not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, the show-cause notice and the confirmed demand were unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute is one of interpretation and the record does not support fraud, suppression, or intent to evade duty, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---