Extended limitation under CENVAT credit fails where full disclosure defeats any allegation of suppression

Where the assessee had disclosed the factory premises, manufacture, and intended availment of CENVAT credit on furnace oil in the registration application, ground plan, and later correspondence, the department could not rely on suppression of facts to invoke the extended limitation period. Since the record showed that the department was aware furnace oil was used for steam generation, the demand was treated as time-barred and the extended period as unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of CENVAT credit was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had declared the entire hotel premises as factory premises at the time of registration and had also intimated the department about manufacture of the goods and the proposed availment of credit on furnace oil. The record showed that the department was aware that furnace oil was being used for generation of steam and that the relevant facts were disclosed in the registration application, ground plan and subsequent correspondence. In these circumstances, the basis for invoking the extended period was absent and the demand could not be sustained as time-barred.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period was held not invocable, in favour of the assessee.

---