Extended limitation cannot be invoked when credit is disclosed in records and the issue is covered by conflicting judicial views.

Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had informed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner before taking credit and had reflected the credit in statutory records and returns. The dispute concerned CENVAT credit on inputs used in fabrication of capital goods and on tow trucks, and the issue was subject to conflicting Tribunal and High Court views. In the absence of suppression of facts, the demand was barred by limitation, and the related denial of credit and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had informed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner before availing credit, and the credit was reflected in the statutory records and reports. The dispute related to admissibility of credit on inputs used in fabrication of capital goods and on tow trucks, and the record showed that the issue was supported by differing views of the Tribunal and High Courts. In such circumstances, suppression of facts could not be attributed to the assessee so as to justify invocation of the longer period of limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation, and the denial of credit and the penalty could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the availment of credit in advance and in statutory records, and the issue is one on which there are conflicting judicial views, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression.

---