Suppression of facts cannot justify extended limitation where CENVAT credit issues were disclosed and the legal position remained unsettled.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where CENVAT credit on fuel used within the factory was under interpretational uncertainty and the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts in ER-1 returns. With no concealment of material particulars on record, the element of suppression was absent; a disputed legal position, even with divergent Supreme Court views and a pending Larger Bench reference, did not by itself justify extended limitation. The conclusion was that invocation of the extended period was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The dispute related to availment of CENVAT credit on fuel used within the factory during a period when the legal position on the treatment of such inputs was under interpretational uncertainty, with divergent views of the Supreme Court and a reference to a Larger Bench pending. The assessee had disclosed the relevant facts in its ER-1 returns, and the records did not show concealment of material particulars. In these circumstances, the non-disclosure necessary to sustain suppression was absent, and the mere existence of a disputed legal issue could not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and was held to be unsustainable.

---