Extended limitation for suppression requires clear concealment, and waiver of pre-deposit followed where disclosure was made and no suppression was shown.

Extended limitation for suppression of facts requires positive concealment or conscious withholding of information; mere negligence, failure, or a general allegation is insufficient. On the facts described, the assessee had disclosed Cenvat credit in periodical returns and was regularly audited, while the notice and order did not identify any specific suppression or misstatement. In the context of conflicting tribunal views on similar credit and later clarification by a Larger Bench, the allegation that the assessee necessarily knew the credit was inadmissible was not persuasive. The extended period was therefore held not invocable, and the assessee was granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts and wilful misstatement, and whether the assessee had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The demand arose from Cenvat credit taken on inputs, capital goods and input services used for erection of transmission towers and shelters. The Show Cause Notice and the adjudication order contained only general assertions that the assessee knew the credit was irregular and had wilfully suppressed facts, but did not clearly identify what was allegedly suppressed or misdeclared. The record also showed that the assessee had been filing periodical returns disclosing the credits and was regularly audited. On limitation, the record showed conflicting views in tribunal decisions on admissibility of similar credit, and clarity emerged only later with the Larger Bench decision in 2010. In that setting, the allegation that the assessee necessarily knew the credit was inadmissible was not persuasive. The reasoning also applied the principle that mere failure or negligence is insufficient for the extended limitation period and that positive suppression or conscious withholding of information is required.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression was not established even prima facie, and the extended period was held to be not invocable. The assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

---