Extended limitation for Cenvat credit demand fails where returns and declarations disclosed inputs and capital goods without suppression.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked for a Cenvat credit demand where the assessee had filed returns and declarations disclosing the relevant inputs and capital goods, including tariff headings and their intended use. As the record showed no specific defect, omission, or mis-declaration in those disclosures, the allegation of suppression of facts was unsustainable. The demand therefore could not survive on extended limitation and was barred by limitation, resulting in the demand being set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts in relation to availment of Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The appellant had filed returns and declarations showing the relevant inputs and capital goods, with tariff headings and particulars of their use. The record did not disclose any specific deficiency in the declarations or any material omission that could support an allegation of non-disclosure or mis-declaration. On the facts, the finding of suppression was held to be unsustainable, and the demand rested wholly on invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable. The demand was barred by limitation and was set aside, with the appeal allowed.

---