Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on input services used for setting up a manufacturing plant after deletion of the expression "setting up" from the inclusive part of the definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 contains a means clause, an inclusive clause and an exclusion clause. Services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture fall within the means clause. Services required for erection, commissioning, installation and fabrication of plant and machinery, technical consultancy, recruitment, information technology, transportation of inputs and capital goods, security, clearing and forwarding, and related business activities had a direct nexus with manufacture because the factory could not be established for production without them. The deletion of "setting up" from the inclusive clause does not exclude services independently covered by the means clause; denial arises only where the service is specifically covered by the exclusion clause. The disputed services were not related to construction of a building or civil structure and were not otherwise excluded.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the disputed services used for setting up the plant is admissible; the assessee is entitled to the credit, and the demand, interest and penalty are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for differential reversal of Cenvat credit on coal removed as such was sustainable; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for differential reversal of Cenvat credit on coal removed as such was sustainable.

Analysis: Cenvat credit on coal used in the manufacture of dutiable finished goods was undisputed. The Revenue treated all coal cleared as such as domestically procured coal requiring reversal at the higher rate, without corroborative evidence. Purchase orders and sale invoices identified the cleared coal as South African-origin imported coal, and the corresponding duty payments were reflected in ER-1 returns. The documentary record supported the assessee's claim that imported coal alone was cleared as such and that credit had been reversed at the applicable rate.

Conclusion: The differential credit-reversal demand was unsustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: Details of coal cleared as such had been furnished to the departmental authorities in 2014, while the statutory ER-1 and ER-6 returns disclosed the clearances and reversal particulars. The show-cause notice issued in December 2018 was not supported by material establishing suppression by the assessee.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed recovery of differential Cenvat credit, interest and penalty could not survive either on the evidentiary merits or on limitation, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory returns and contemporaneous transactional documents disclose removal of inputs as such, a higher reversal liability cannot be imposed without corroborative evidence, and such disclosure negates suppression for invoking the extended limitation period.

Issues: Whether surplus electricity generated during manufacture and sold to an outside electricity distribution company attracts payment of 6% of its value under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The identical issue had already been resolved for the relevant period: electricity generated from bagasse and wheeled out to the electricity distribution company was not liable to the amount prescribed under Rule 6(3). The earlier adjudication dropping such demand had been accepted by the departmental committee and had attained finality. No change in the applicable statutory provisions justified a contrary treatment.

Conclusion: Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not require payment of 6% of the value of surplus electricity sold to the outside electricity distribution company. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether service-tax credit on clearing charges, export-sales commission, material-handling charges, terminal-handling charges and bank commission charges was admissible as input-service credit.

Analysis: For manufacturer exports, the place of removal extends to the port at which the goods are loaded for export; consequently, services used up to that point for export clearance, handling and terminal operations fall within the scope of input service. Export-sales commission is covered as sales promotion, and the clarificatory explanation concerning sales promotion operates beneficially. Banking and finance services used in carrying on manufacturing activity are also covered input services.

Conclusion: Credit of service tax paid on clearing charges, export-sales commission, material-handling charges, terminal-handling charges and bank commission charges is admissible to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was liable to central excise duty as the manufacturer of goods supplied to power supply corporations; (ii) Whether personal penalty was imposable on the authorised representative.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was liable to central excise duty as the manufacturer of goods supplied to power supply corporations.

Analysis: Manufacture had to be determined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not merely from representations made to customers for obtaining orders. The evidence showed that the assessee lacked functional manufacturing infrastructure, machinery and testing facilities, while the goods were purchased and sold as trading goods or obtained in limited quantities through job workers acting on a principal-to-principal basis. The Revenue produced no independent evidence of actual manufacture by the assessee. The earlier decision concerning the same assessee and substantially identical facts was applicable. Suspicion arising from declarations to power supply corporations could not substitute proof of manufacture.

Conclusion: The assessee was not the manufacturer of the disputed goods; the duty demand, interest and penalty against the assessee are unsustainable and are set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalty was imposable on the authorised representative.

Analysis: Since the underlying duty demand was unsustainable, there was no basis to regard the goods as liable to confiscation. The authorised representative acted bona fide and lacked knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules is not imposable on the authorised representative and is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order cannot sustain the fiscal liabilities founded on the allegation that the assessee manufactured the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A representation of manufacturer status to secure commercial orders, without independent proof of actual manufacture under the statutory definition, cannot fasten central excise liability on a trader.

Issues: (i) Whether goods partly sold to independent buyers and partly transferred to a sister unit for captive consumption were to be valued under Rule 8 on cost-plus basis or with reference to the independent-buyer price; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period was validly invoked for the differential excise-duty demand.

Issue (i): Whether goods partly sold to independent buyers and partly transferred to a sister unit for captive consumption were to be valued under Rule 8 on cost-plus basis or with reference to the independent-buyer price.

Analysis: During the material period, Rule 8 applied where excisable goods were not sold and were used captively. Since substantial quantities were sold to independent buyers, Rule 8 did not govern the sister-unit clearances. The available normal price for independent sales could be adopted through the residuary mechanism under Rule 11, consistently with Section 4(1)(a). The subsequent amendment of Rule 8 did not alter the applicable valuation method for the disputed period.

Conclusion: The independent-buyer sale price was the proper basis for valuation of the clearances to the sister unit; the differential duty demand was sustainable. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period was validly invoked for the differential excise-duty demand.

Analysis: The excise returns disclosed only aggregate clearance quantity and value, without separately disclosing the quantity and value of sister-unit clearances. This withheld material particulars concerning the lower valuation adopted for related-party transfers and constituted suppression of full and correct facts with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid. The finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation of sister-unit clearances was required to reflect the available independent-sale price, and the demand for the larger period, with consequential liabilities upheld in the impugned order, remained sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are partly sold to independent buyers and partly cleared to a related unit for captive use, the readily available independent-sale price may determine the assessable value of related-party clearances under the residuary valuation mechanism; non-disclosure of separate related-party clearance details can justify extended limitation.

Issues: Whether interest was payable on refund of a pre-deposit made before 06.08.2014, and whether denial and recovery of the interest already refunded were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The proviso to the substituted Section 35FF preserves the pre-amendment regime for deposits made before 06.08.2014. Under that regime, interest becomes payable only where the refundable deposit is not returned within three months from communication of the appellate order. Since the deposit was made on 21.04.2014 and refunded within the stipulated three-month period after the appellate order, no statutory entitlement to interest arose.

Conclusion: Interest on the refunded pre-deposit was not payable; denial and recovery of the interest amount were valid, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether machined tractor parts returned by a job-worker to principal manufacturers were eligible for exemption when used within the recipient's factory for manufacture of tractors; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding central excise duty.

Issue (i): Whether machined tractor parts returned by a job-worker to principal manufacturers were eligible for exemption when used within the recipient's factory for manufacture of tractors.

Analysis: The relevant exemption entries required that the goods be parts, be used within the factory of production, and be used in manufacture of tractors falling under Heading 8701. The parts satisfied these conditions. The expression concerning use within the factory did not require that the inputs or castings must have originated or been generated in that factory. The job-work had consistently been treated as a taxable service and service tax was paid on the job charges without departmental objection. Levying central excise duty additionally on the same work and consideration was impermissible.

Conclusion: The exemption was available to the assessee; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding central excise duty.

Analysis: The assessee was registered for service tax, paid tax on the job-work charges, and regularly filed returns. In the absence of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period was unavailable.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands failed both on substantive eligibility for exemption and on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption conditional on use of parts within the factory of production is available where the prescribed end use is established, without requiring that the inputs originate in that factory; extended limitation requires suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit is admissible on aircraft running expenses and charges for hiring an executive jet used in the assessee's business.

Analysis: The services were used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and for business-related activities, including transportation of high-value gold, official travel by executives, showroom operations, and sales promotion. The invoices stood in the assessee's name and service tax had been paid. In the absence of admissible evidence establishing that the services were misused for non-business purposes, credit could not be denied.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the aircraft running expenses and executive-jet hiring charges is admissible to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on service tax paid on commission paid to agents for marketing cement up to 02.02.2016; (ii) Whether the Explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) treating sale of dutiable goods on commission basis as sales promotion operated retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on service tax paid on commission paid to agents for marketing cement up to 02.02.2016.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) covers sales promotion within input services. The Explanation inserted by Notification No. 2/2016-C.E. clarified that sales promotion includes services for sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. The departmental circular also recognised admissibility of credit on such services. The contrary precedent relied on for denial had been set aside and remanded by the Supreme Court and could not govern the matter.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on service tax paid on sales commission was admissible to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) treating sale of dutiable goods on commission basis as sales promotion operated retrospectively.

Analysis: The Explanation was clarificatory of the existing expression "sales promotion" and judicial precedents, including the jurisdictional High Court decision, recognised its retrospective application.

Conclusion: The Explanation operated retrospectively and covered sales on commission basis for the pre-notification period, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of credit, and the consequential interest and penalty, lacked legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory explanation that expressly includes sale of dutiable goods on commission basis within sales promotion applies retrospectively for determining eligibility of CENVAT credit on commission-agent services.

Issues: Whether the six-month time limit for availment of Cenvat credit introduced by Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) applied to inputs and input services received before the amendment came into effect.

Analysis: The inputs and input services were received before the amended time-limit provisions became effective, when no limitation governed availment of credit. The entitlement to credit had therefore accrued upon receipt of the duty-paid inputs and services. The subsequently introduced six-month limitation operated prospectively and could not curtail that accrued entitlement in respect of pre-amendment invoices. The relevant date was the date of receipt of the inputs and input services, rather than the later entry of credit in the RG-23A Part II register.

Conclusion: The six-month limitation was inapplicable to the pre-amendment invoices; the Cenvat credit was validly availed, and the associated interest demand and penalty could not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether a manufacturer may avail CENVAT credit on inputs used by a contractor in fabricating storage tanks and mechanical piping, where the contractor has or has not availed service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for recovery of the disputed credit.

Issue (i): Whether a manufacturer may avail CENVAT credit on inputs used by a contractor in fabricating storage tanks and mechanical piping, where the contractor has or has not availed service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme.

Analysis: Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires eligible inputs, receipt in the manufacturer's factory, compliance with prescribed conditions, and valid duty-paying documents. The inputs were received at the appellant's premises, the appellant bore the incidence of duty, and the materials were used in relation to manufacture of excisable products through fabrication of storage tanks and piping. Credit is attached to the inputs and their use, rather than ownership of the goods or the identity of the person undertaking fabrication.

Analysis: Where the contractor did not avail abatement, the statutory conditions for credit stood satisfied and there was no legal basis to deny the manufacturer credit merely because the contractor used the inputs. However, where the contractor opted for service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme, the scheme incorporated the value of goods in the concessional taxation arrangement and barred credit to the contractor. Allowing the manufacturer credit on the same inputs would result in an impermissible double benefit.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on inputs where the contractor did not avail service-tax abatement, but is not entitled to such credit where the contractor availed abatement under the works contract composition scheme. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for recovery of the disputed credit.

Analysis: The appellant regularly filed statutory returns, underwent departmental audits, and supplied the documents and information sought. The prescribed returns did not require disclosure of the particular use of inputs. In these circumstances, failure by the department to scrutinise available records or issue notices within time could not establish wilful suppression, fraud, collusion, or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is not invocable. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit liability requires re-quantification by excluding the time-barred demand and by allowing credit only for inputs not covered by the contractor's abatement benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer satisfying the CENVAT credit conditions may claim credit for inputs used through a contractor, but cannot claim credit where the same inputs have already yielded the contractor a concessional works-contract abatement benefit; extended limitation requires proof of wilful suppression or equivalent intent.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where the imported aluminium scrap was not received in the factory and credit was availed on invalid, exhausted or fictitious documents; (ii) Whether the demand of duty for clandestine removal, invocation of the extended limitation period and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where the imported aluminium scrap was not received in the factory and credit was availed on invalid, exhausted or fictitious documents.

Analysis: Rule 3(1) requires receipt of inputs in the factory for availment of credit. Documentary endorsements showed diversion of imported scrap away from the factory; the material was corroborated by statements of the customs house agents and cargo personnel. The appellant did not produce supporting Cenvat records or invoices, while its statements admitted non-receipt of scrap and departmental investigation established that the stated suppliers had made no supplies.

Conclusion: The Cenvat credit was wrongly availed and its reversal was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty for clandestine removal, invocation of the extended limitation period and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: Parallel invoices, transport and freight records, booking registers, delivery documents and statements established clearances of final products without invoices and without payment of duty. The evidence demonstrated fraudulent conduct causing duty evasion, rather than a procedural lapse, and supported invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalties.

Conclusion: The duty demand for clandestine removal, extended limitation and penalties were sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed reversal of inadmissible credit, excise-duty demand, extended limitation and penalties remain enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit is unavailable where inputs are not actually received in the registered factory, and corroborated documentary and testimonial evidence of undisclosed clearances establishes clandestine removal and justifies the extended limitation period where fraud is shown.

Issues: (i) Whether the charge of clandestine removal was established; (ii) Whether individual penalties were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the charge of clandestine removal was established.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority rejected the requested cross-examination despite treating the reply as interim, but did not communicate that rejection or grant a further opportunity to file a final reply on merits. The demand was consequently determined solely on the show-cause allegations. Seeking cross-examination was a permissible means of disputing the alleged admissions, notwithstanding that the statements had not been formally retracted. The proceedings therefore breached audi alteram partem and denied a reasonable opportunity to defend.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether individual penalties were justified.

Analysis: The penalised individuals were likewise not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their defence. The procedural infirmity that invalidated the demand equally affected the penalties.

Conclusion: The individual penalties could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties were set aside because the adjudication was conducted in breach of natural justice, and a remand was considered purposeless given the age of the alleged activity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where liability is founded on statements and the noticees seek cross-examination, rejection of that request without communicating the decision and affording a further effective opportunity to answer the case violates audi alteram partem and vitiates the adjudication.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation for demanding central excise duty could validly be invoked.

Analysis: The Department had been informed through prior correspondence of the assessee's intended procurement and packing/labelling activities in respect of crankshafts. It could not, after three years, claim ignorance of those material facts. Further, despite the direction to issue a proper recovery notice, the show-cause notice was issued beyond one year, and the lower orders did not address these facts. The extended period was therefore invoked without justification.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was legally unsustainable; consequently, the duty demand and consequential penalty could not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand based on the alleged shortage of sponge iron was sustainable without reliable weighment records and corroborative evidence. (ii) Whether the show cause notice was issued after an unjustified delay when the alleged shortage was known on the date of stock-taking.

Issue (i): Whether the demand based on the alleged shortage of sponge iron was sustainable without reliable weighment records and corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The demand was founded entirely on the alleged shortage detected during physical stock verification. The records did not contain details of the trucks used, weighment slips, or the gross and net weights supporting the claimed weighment of approximately 963 MT. In the absence of such material, the authenticity of the weighment and the correct quantification of the shortage were not established.

Conclusion: The demand based on the alleged shortage was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice was issued after an unjustified delay when the alleged shortage was known on the date of stock-taking.

Analysis: The alleged shortage was identified during stock-taking on 06.12.2007. No further investigation or corroborative material concerning the purported buyers was shown to have been gathered before issuance of the show cause notice. The delayed issuance was therefore unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The delayed issuance of the show cause notice was unjustified on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The alleged shortage and resulting demand were not established through reliable and corroborated evidence, and the challenged demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand founded on alleged clandestine shortage cannot be sustained where the underlying weighment and quantification are unsupported by reliable records and corroborative evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess could be transferred to the Cenvat credit account and utilised for payment of excise duty after withdrawal of those cesses; (ii) Whether interest was payable on the duty demand arising from such transfer and utilisation when sufficient balance existed in the regular Cenvat credit account; (iii) Whether penalty for such availment and utilisation was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess could be transferred to the Cenvat credit account and utilised for payment of excise duty after withdrawal of those cesses.

Analysis: The applicable scheme under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permitted credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess only for payment of the corresponding cesses and did not permit cross-utilisation towards basic excise duty. The withdrawal or subsuming of those cesses did not create any statutory right to merge the balance of such cess credit with ordinary Cenvat credit. The issue stood covered by the decisions relied upon, which recognised that blocked cess credit could not be used for payment of excise duty in the absence of an express enabling provision.

Conclusion: The transfer and utilisation of accumulated Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess towards payment of excise duty was not permissible; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the duty demand arising from such transfer and utilisation when sufficient balance existed in the regular Cenvat credit account.

Analysis: The record showed that, at the relevant time, the assessee was carrying Cenvat credit balance far in excess of the disputed amount. In that situation, the impugned entry was treated as an irregular taking of credit rather than a case causing actual shortage of admissible credit for payment of duty. On that factual basis, interest was found not recoverable on the confirmed demand amount.

Conclusion: Interest was not payable on the confirmed demand; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for such availment and utilisation was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a contested legal issue relating to transferability and utilisation of cess balances, which had been the subject of litigation up to higher judicial forums. In that interpretational setting, penal consequences were found unwarranted.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand based on impermissible cross-utilisation of cess credit survived, but consequential interest and penalty were deleted in view of the existing admissible credit balance and the interpretational nature of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express provision under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, accumulated Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess cannot be merged with general Cenvat credit or cross-utilised for payment of excise duty after withdrawal of those cesses.

Issues: Whether un-machined castings manufactured and supplied for use in the manufacture of wind operated electricity generators were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.

Analysis: The notification exempts goods falling under any Chapter when used in the specified energy devices and specifically includes wind operated electricity generator, its components and parts thereof, as well as parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for manufacture of the specified goods. The entry was held to cover parts which further go into making parts for wind operated electricity generators, and the contrary reading adopted in the impugned order was found to be inconsistent with the plain language of the notification. The castings were also found to be tailor-made according to customer drawings, incapable of alternate use, and intended solely for manufacture of wind operated electricity generators. The clarification issued by the Board and the supporting precedent reinforced that the exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were un-machined castings.

Conclusion: The un-machined castings were held to be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on countervailing duty paid on imported steam coal at a concessional rate under the customs notification; and (ii) whether the extended period and penalty were sustainable, including the penalty reduced in respect of the remaining credit dispute.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on countervailing duty paid on imported steam coal at a concessional rate under the customs notification.

Analysis: The levy under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 remains additional duty of customs, and the expression equivalent to duty of excise refers to the nature of the levy rather than parity in rate. The availability of more than one notification entitled the importer to choose the beneficial notification. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit of such additional duty, and no violation of the prescribed conditions under Rule 9 was shown. The issue was also covered by earlier decisions holding that concessional rate of CVD does not by itself defeat credit entitlement.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on CVD paid at the concessional rate was admissible and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period and penalty were sustainable, including the penalty reduced in respect of the remaining credit dispute.

Analysis: For the civil construction-related credit dispute, the Court found no basis to invoke the extended period and held that penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified in full. However, considering the nature of the assessee and the circumstances, complete waiver of penalty was declined and the remaining penalty was confined to a reduced amount. The separate nominal penalty under Rule 27 was also set aside.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable, the major penalties were set aside, and the residual penalty was restricted to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the main credit issue, failed only to the limited extent of the reduced residual penalty, and was disposed of as partly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concessional CVD paid on imported goods retains its character as additional duty of customs, and CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because the duty was paid at a reduced rate under a customs notification.

Issues: Whether the excise duty demand raised on the basis of ER-6 returns and invoking the extended period could be sustained when the relevant facts were disclosed in the statutory returns and no corroborative evidence established clearance of Cenvat-availed coal to third parties.

Analysis: The demand was founded only on the ER-6 returns for the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the ER-1 and ER-6 returns disclosed the receipt, removal and closing balance of coal, and the figures in the show cause notice matched the return data. It also found that no investigation had been made into the quality of the coal mentioned in the invoices, and no verification or independent evidence showed that the Cenvat-availed coal alone had been removed to third parties. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the allegation of suppression was not made out, and the factual disclosures in the returns negatived the invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was held unsustainable both on merits and on limitation, and the assessee succeeded.