Extended limitation for cenvat credit demand fails where suppression of facts is not established, rendering the claim time-barred.

Irregularly availed cenvat credit could not be recovered by invoking the extended period of limitation where suppression of facts was not established. On the facts noted, the assessee, a public sector undertaking, was found not to have suppressed material information, so the prerequisite for the extended limitation period was absent. The demand for the relevant period was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and could not survive beyond it. The demand was treated as time-barred, and the consequential liability based on extended limitation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of irregularly availed cenvat credit was time-barred and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The demand related to the period April 2006 to September 2006, while the show-cause notice was issued on 19.04.2011 invoking the extended period on the allegation of suppression. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already held that there was no suppression and had granted the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since suppression could not be attributed to a public sector undertaking on the facts found, the prerequisite for invoking the extended period was absent. In such circumstances, the demand could not survive beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the entire demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand, along with the consequential liability founded on extended limitation, was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where suppression of facts is not established, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and the demand becomes time-barred.

---