Extended limitation cannot apply without suppression where Cenvat credit on structural items remains a common interpretive dispute.

A dispute on Cenvat credit for plates, channels, angles, beams and coils used in plant repair and maintenance turned on Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the limitation period. Because the issue was common across industries and had produced conflicting decisions, the record did not support a finding of suppression of facts, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The demand raised for that period was set aside. As the remaining demand on the normal period was linked to connected matters pending before the Supreme Court, the balance issue was remanded for fresh adjudication after that decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in a dispute concerning Cenvat credit on plates, channels, angles, beams and coils used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh decision on the remaining demand.

Analysis: The dispute concerned interpretation of Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and related entitlement to credit on structural items used in plant maintenance. The demand for the major portion was raised for the extended period, but the record showed that the issue was a common one across industries and had been the subject of conflicting decisions. In such a situation, suppression of facts could not be attributed to the assessee, and the ingredients for invoking the extended period were not made out. Since the question on the normal period was stated to be pending before the Supreme Court in connected matters, fresh adjudication after that decision was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The extended-period demand was set aside. The remaining matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after the Supreme Court's ruling in the connected cases.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on limitation, while the balance dispute was sent back for reconsideration in light of the pending Supreme Court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disputed issue of statutory interpretation, where the question is common across industries and no deliberate suppression is shown, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---