Extended limitation cannot be invoked for job-work movements made under the prescribed Cenvat procedure amid conflicting duty-liability views.

Movements of inputs and raw materials under the job-work procedure in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period where the duty liability issue on processed goods was already under conflicting Tribunal views and referred to a Larger Bench. On those facts, the record did not support suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The extended period of limitation was therefore not invocable, and the duty demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to sustain the duty demand where the movements of inputs under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 were made in accordance with the prescribed job-work procedure and the liability issue was already under judicial conflict.

Analysis: The movements of inputs and raw materials from the principal manufacturer to the job worker were undertaken under the statutory job-work procedure. The liability of the job worker to pay duty on the processed goods had itself been the subject of conflicting views before the Tribunal and was referred to the Larger Bench. In these circumstances, the record did not support an of suppression of facts or misdeclaration so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

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

---