Cenvat credit under Rule 6 must follow one consistent statutory route; mixed compliance is not permitted, except protected services.

Extended limitation was upheld because suppression arose from credit availment of a separate entity discovered only after merger and verification. Under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, an assessee cannot mix the separate-account route under Rule 6(2) with the reversal mechanism under Rule 6(3) for different common input services; once one statutory option is chosen, credit must be tested consistently under that scheme. Credit for services specifically covered by Rule 6(5) remained fully available, and that limited credit was preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression in respect of the second notice; (ii) whether credit on common input services was admissible when the assessee had maintained separate accounts for some services and followed the alternative reversal mechanism for others; (iii) whether full credit was admissible for the services covered by Rule 6(5).

Issue (i): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression in respect of the second notice.

Analysis: The notice was issued in respect of a separate entity that continued as such until merger, and the facts relating to its credit availment came to light only after verification following the merger and filing of consolidated returns. The principle that a second notice on identical facts may not justify extended limitation did not assist the assessee on these facts, since the material suppression related to the newly surfaced entity-wise availment of credit.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether credit on common input services was admissible when the assessee had maintained separate accounts for some services and followed the alternative reversal mechanism for others.

Analysis: Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was treated as requiring an assessee to follow one consistent statutory route in respect of common input services. Where separate accounts are maintained under Rule 6(2), the assessee cannot selectively invoke Rule 6(3) for other common input services to avoid the restriction attached to that scheme. The amended regime under Rule 6(3A) did not alter this basic position, because the assessee had already elected the separate-account route for common services and could not combine the two methods to its advantage.

Conclusion: Credit on common input services, other than the credit specifically protected under Rule 6(5), was not admissible to the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether full credit was admissible for the services covered by Rule 6(5).

Analysis: Rule 6(5) permits full credit for the specified input services, and there was no justification for denying that category of credit. The record also showed that such credit had been allowed in the earlier proceeding.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to full credit for the services covered by Rule 6(5).

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of preserving credit under Rule 6(5), while the substantive demand and the invocation of extended limitation were otherwise sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee cannot simultaneously rely on Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in a selective manner for different common input services; once a statutory option is adopted, the credit entitlement must be tested consistently under that chosen scheme.

---