Extended limitation for automobile cess demand rejected where suppression was not established and normal limitation applied.

The demand for automobile cess was held time-barred because the department failed to justify invocation of the extended limitation period. The dispute arose from an audit objection, and although the assessee had paid the cess under protest for part of the period, the record did not establish suppression of facts or any other ingredient required to extend limitation. A show cause notice issued on 03.04.2013 covered the period 2008-09 to 2011-12, but the demand could not survive beyond the normal limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of automobile cess was barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period could not be invoked.

Analysis: The dispute arose from audit objection, and the record showed that the assessee had paid the cess under protest for a part of the period. The demand was raised for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 only through a show cause notice issued on 03.04.2013. The material on record did not establish suppression of facts by the assessee. The department also did not substantiate the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, the demand could not survive beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the invocation of the extended period was rejected.

---