Extended limitation requires proven suppression or fraud; disclosed suo motu refund credits cannot sustain a time-barred demand.

Extended limitation cannot be invoked to recover annual differential refund amounts taken as suo motu credit where the credits were disclosed in monthly duty-payment statements and separately communicated to the Department. As the Department did not dispute entitlement to the underlying refunds and possessed all material facts concerning the credits, no suppression, fraud, or mala fide intent to evade duty was established. The notice relying on the extended period was therefore time-barred, and the resulting demand proceedings were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to recover annual differential refund amounts taken as suo motu credit.

Analysis: The self-credit for each financial year was disclosed in monthly duty-payment statements and separately intimated to the Department through letters. The Department did not dispute entitlement to the underlying refund amounts, and all material facts concerning the availment of credit were within its knowledge. No evidence established suppression, fraud, or mala fide intent to evade duty so as to justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The show cause notice invoking the extended period was barred by limitation; consequently, no demand proceedings were sustainable against the assessee.

---