Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for CENVAT credit disputes without proof of suppression or wilful evasion.

Service tax demand arising from alleged irregular CENVAT credit was held time-barred because the department could not prove suppression, fraud, or wilful intent to evade duty. The assessee had disclosed the credit in statutory returns, and mere non-furnishing of additional particulars not required by the return form did not amount to suppression. Since the only challenge was limitation and no positive material supported invocation of the extended period, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax based on reversal and alleged irregular availment of CENVAT credit was barred by limitation in the absence of evidence of suppression or wilful intent to evade tax.

Analysis: The appellant did not contest the inadmissibility of the credit on merits and confined the challenge to limitation. The credit availment was reflected in the statutory returns, and the record did not show any positive material establishing wilful fraud, suppression, or an intent to evade payment so as to justify invocation of the extended period. In the absence of a disclosure obligation in the return form requiring further particulars of the nature of the credit, non-disclosure of such details could not by itself amount to suppression.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the demand was barred by limitation in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where credit availment is duly reflected in returns and the department fails to show positive evidence of suppression or wilful evasion, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because the credit is later found inadmissible.

---