Extended limitation for Cenvat credit denial rejected where returns were filed and no suppression or fraud was shown.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked for denial of Cenvat credit because the assessee had filed ER-1 returns and the department already had access to the relevant information. No deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement was established, and mere omission or non-declaration was insufficient to justify the longer limitation period. As the demand was raised only after a later Larger Bench ruling, the delay on the department's part did not support extended limitation. The demand was therefore time-barred and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for denial of Cenvat credit and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had filed ER-1 returns for the relevant period, and the department had access to the returns. The demand arose only after the later Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd., while earlier decisions had supported the assessee's understanding of eligibility. In such a setting, no deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement was established. Mere non-declaration or omission was insufficient to justify the extended period, and the departmental delay in initiating action did not support invocation of the longer limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred. The Revenue's appeal was therefore rejected.

---