Cenvat credit on courier bills of entry failed on proof, but extended limitation was barred absent suppression.

Cenvat credit taken on courier bills of entry was disallowed on merits because the assessee could not produce original documents or authenticated evidence to correlate the photocopies, so the credit claim was not established. On limitation, disclosure in ER-1 returns and the Rule 7 statement meant the department had access to the relevant facts, and mere description of the documents as BE did not prove suppression or wilful mis-statement with intent to evade duty. The extended period was therefore unavailable, the demand was held time-barred, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance and recovery of Cenvat credit taken on courier bills of entry was sustainable on merits. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression or mis-statement.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance and recovery of Cenvat credit taken on courier bills of entry was sustainable on merits.

Analysis: The appellant was unable to produce original documents or authenticated evidence to correlate the photocopies of courier bills of entry despite repeated opportunities. The claimed credit was not satisfactorily established on the record, and the department's objection to the evidentiary basis of the credit was not displaced.

Conclusion: The disallowance and recovery of credit were sustainable on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression or mis-statement.

Analysis: The availment of credit was disclosed in the ER-1 returns and the Rule 7 statement. The Cenvat Credit Rules did not prescribe any particular manner for describing courier bills of entry, and the department had access to the relevant information. Mere mention of the documents as BE, without proof of any positive act intended to evade duty, was insufficient to establish suppression or wilful mis-statement. In the absence of such material, invocation of the extended period was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the credit demand could not be sustained by resort to the extended period of limitation, and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For invocation of the extended limitation period, there must be a proved positive act of suppression or mis-statement with intent to evade duty, and disclosure of the relevant facts in statutory returns defeats such invocation.

---