Extended limitation for CENVAT recovery requires specific fraud or suppression allegations; absent them, the demand is time-barred.

Recovery under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, read with Rule 12, follows the Section 11A limitation framework, so a notice seeking the extended period must plead fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Because the notice contained no such averments, the demand could not be sustained beyond the normal limitation period and was treated as time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, read with Rule 12, was barred by limitation for want of allegations necessary to invoke the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The demand related to a period beyond the normal limitation period. For recovery under Rule 6(3)(b), the procedure under Section 11A applies mutatis mutandis, and where the Revenue seeks to recover an amount beyond the normal period, the show-cause notice must specifically allege the ingredients required for invoking the extended period, such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The notice in question did not contain any such averments, and the recovery was therefore not sustained on limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---