Extended limitation barred where contemporaneous judgments supported the assessee's interpretation and no suppression was established.

Where contemporaneous High Court and Tribunal decisions had supported the assessee's interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, non-reversal of credit could not be characterised as suppression, misstatement, or mala fide conduct. On that basis, the longer limitation period was not available because the assessee's position was legally tenable during the relevant period. The demand was therefore time-barred, and invocation of the extended period of limitation was inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked in view of contemporaneous decisions holding the assessee's interpretation to be legally tenable.

Analysis: During the relevant period, the legal position on Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was supported by decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Where authoritative judicial and quasi-judicial fora had interpreted the provision in favour of the assessee, the assessee could not be attributed suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent for not reversing credit. In such circumstances, invocation of the longer period of limitation was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was inapplicable.

---