https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448378 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not available where the assessee had disclosed CENVAT credit in ST-3 returns and the Department had examined the relevant records before the show cause notice. Mere availment of credit, even if later found inadmissible, did not by itself amount to suppression of facts. Suppression for extended limitation required deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax, and no such positive act or intent was shown. A bona fide dispute on credit entitlement and no duty to disclose beyond the return format further negatived invocation of the extended period, so the demand, penalty and interest based on the barred notice could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448378 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not available where the assessee had disclosed CENVAT credit in ST-3 returns and the Department had examined the relevant records before the show cause notice. Mere availment of credit, even if later found inadmissible, did not by itself amount to suppression of facts. Suppression for extended limitation required deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax, and no such positive act or intent was shown. A bona fide dispute on credit entitlement and no duty to disclose beyond the return format further negatived invocation of the extended period, so the demand, penalty and interest based on the barred notice could not be sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448378