Extended limitation for Cenvat credit denial turns on return filing and proof of wilful suppression.

Regular filing of ER-1 returns can defeat invocation of the extended limitation period for denial of Cenvat credit when the credit position is disclosed in statutory records and only a minor documentary discrepancy is shown, because such facts do not by themselves establish wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. Where no ER-1 returns were filed for a later period, the extended period remained available and the ineligible credit for that period was recoverable with interest. The disputed credit was therefore time-barred only for the period covered by regular returns, but remained reversible for the period of non-filing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for denial of Cenvat credit for the period when ER-1 returns were regularly filed, and whether the credit for the disputed period was liable to be reversed with interest.

Analysis: The regular filing of ER-1 returns for April 2015 to March 2017 showed that the availment of credit was reflected in the statutory records, and a minor discrepancy in supporting documents did not by itself establish wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. For April 2017 to June 2017, however, no ER-1 returns were filed, and the extended period was therefore available for that period. The demand for the earlier period was consequently held to be time-barred, while the ineligible credit for the later period remained recoverable with interest.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period failed for April 2015 to March 2017, but succeeded for April 2017 to June 2017; the appellant was held liable to reverse the ineligible Cenvat credit for the entire disputed period along with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the time-bar defence for the period during which statutory returns were regularly filed, but the credit denial was sustained for the period of non-filing.

---