Extended limitation period rejected where no suppression was shown and the dispute was revenue neutral.

Extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the appellant maintained regular ER-1 returns, dealt with registered manufacturers, and the record showed no deliberate suppression, misrepresentation, or contravention. The demand arose from an alleged failure to include the value of free-supplied metal components in assessable value, but the situation was revenue neutral since the duty, if any, would have been available as Cenvat credit to the recipient manufacturers. The appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had carried out galvanization work, maintained regular ER-1 returns, and the transactions were undertaken with registered manufacturers. The demand was founded on the allegation that the assessable value did not include the cost of metal components supplied free by customers. On the admitted facts, there was no material to show deliberate suppression, misrepresentation, or contravention of the provisions. The duty, if any, would also have been available as Cenvat credit to the recipient manufacturers, making the situation revenue neutral.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue and the appeal succeeded.

---