Extended limitation for Modvat credit requires suppression of facts; mere omission in declaration is not enough.

Mere omission to include inputs in a Rule 57G declaration was treated as a failure of disclosure, not suppression of facts, because the non-inclusion was apparent on the face of the declaration and did not prevent the department from knowing the material facts in time. On that basis, irregular availment of Modvat credit alone was held insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period under the proviso to Rule 57-1; the longer period applies only where the statutory ingredients of suppression or similar conditions are satisfied. The reference application was rejected because the dispute did not raise a referable question of law on extended limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission to include inputs in the Rule 57G declaration amounted to suppression of facts so as to attract the extended period under the proviso to Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and whether any question of law arose for reference.

Analysis: The omission to mention the inputs in the declaration was treated as a failure, not as suppression of facts. The non-inclusion was apparent on the face of the declaration, and the respondents' conduct did not prevent the department from knowing the material facts in time. Mere irregular availment of Modvat credit did not, by itself, justify invocation of the longer limitation period. The legal position was that only cases falling within the ingredients of suppression or the other conditions in the proviso could attract the extended period, and the facts did not satisfy that test.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to Rule 57-1 was not attracted, and no question of law arose for reference.

Final Conclusion: The reference application was rejected because the dispute did not disclose any referable question of law on the applicability of the extended limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere omission or incomplete declaration, without concealment amounting to suppression of facts, does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of Modvat credit.

---