Extended limitation cannot recover disputed Cenvat credit absent fraud or suppression; recorded transactions defeat concealment allegations.

Extended limitation for recovery of disputed Cenvat credit was unavailable where the records showed the transactions, and there was no allegation or finding of fraud, suppression of facts, or falsification. The dispute concerned credit on input services linked to plant setup and rehabilitation and resettlement arrangements, but the controversy was treated as one of legal interpretation rather than concealment. In the absence of the ingredients required to invoke the extended period, the show cause notice could not be sustained on that ground, and the appeal succeeded with the impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of disputed Cenvat credit and interest when there was no allegation of fraud, suppression of facts, or falsification of records.

Analysis: The dispute arose from availment of Cenvat credit on input services connected with setting up the plant and rehabilitation and resettlement arrangements. The demand notice and the adjudication were examined against the admitted factual position that the transactions were recorded in the books and there was no pleading or finding of deliberate concealment, fraud, or falsification. On these facts, the controversy was one of legal interpretation rather than concealment. In such circumstances, the ingredients necessary to sustain invocation of the extended limitation period were absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the show cause notice could not be sustained on that ground. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

---