Extended limitation unavailable where job-work activity was disclosed in returns and no mala fides were shown.

Extended limitation could not be used to confirm service tax demand on galvanization job-work, because the assessee had disclosed in monthly returns the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs used for that activity. That disclosure indicated bona fides and supported the assessee's understanding that the activity amounted to manufacture and, in any event, that the finished hand-pumps were exempt. In the absence of material showing mala fides or suppression, the longer limitation period was unavailable to the Revenue, and the demand failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for confirming service tax demand arising from galvanization work carried out on job-work basis.

Analysis: The demand related entirely to a period beyond the normal limitation period. The assessee had disclosed in its monthly returns the reversal of Cenvat credit pertaining to inputs used for the job-work activity. That disclosure was sufficient to show bona fides and to support the assessee's understanding that the activity amounted to manufacture and that, in any event, the finished hand-pumps were exempt. In the absence of any material to establish mala fides, the longer limitation period was not available to the Revenue.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand was unsustainable on limitation.

---