Extended limitation barred where job worker fully disclosed activity and no evidence of suppression or mala fide intent existed.

Extended limitation for recovering central excise duty cannot be invoked where a job worker had disclosed its zinc coating or galvanization activity, held service tax registration, and paid service tax on the activity. The department was already aware of the nature of the business, and the record showed no positive evidence of suppression, concealment, or mala fide intent to evade duty. Mere registration under service tax and acceptance of tax payments did not justify the extended period in the absence of deliberate non-disclosure. The demand was therefore set aside on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovering central excise duty from a job worker who had disclosed its activities, held service tax registration, and paid service tax on the activity undertaken.

Analysis: The appellant was registered with the service tax department and had disclosed the activity of zinc coating or galvanization. In such a situation, the Revenue was aware of the nature of the activity. The record did not disclose any positive material showing suppression, concealment, or mala fide intent to evade duty. Mere registration under service tax and acceptance of tax payment by the department could not, by themselves, justify invocation of the extended limitation period in the absence of evidence of deliberate non-disclosure.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the duty demand was set aside on limitation; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has fully disclosed its activities to the department and no positive evidence of suppression or mala fide intent exists, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---