Extended limitation and Cenvat credit issues in debonding: duty-neutral payment without suppression defeated penalty and interest.

Extended limitation was held unavailable where the assessee sought debonding, paid duty on capital goods and goods in stock as directed, and disclosed the payment to the Department, because the omission relating to work-in-progress did not amount to suppression, misstatement, or deliberate evasion. Cenvat credit was also held admissible on the disputed duty in a duty-neutral setting, since the payment could be taken as credit by the downstream DTA unit and was not barred under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. On that basis, the penalty and interest also failed, and the demand was sustained only to the extent the appellate order had already set it aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the facts of the case. (ii) Whether Cenvat credit could be denied and consequential penalty and interest sustained on duty paid in respect of work-in-progress at the time of debonding.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The respondents had applied for debonding, paid duty on the capital goods, raw materials, spares, packing materials and finished goods as directed by the Department, and informed the Department of such payment. The Department itself issued no-objection for final debonding after physical verification of stock. In these circumstances, the non-payment of duty on work-in-progress was held not to be the result of suppression, misstatement or any deliberate intention to evade duty. Mere omission was held insufficient to attract the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied and consequential penalty and interest sustained on duty paid in respect of work-in-progress at the time of debonding.

Analysis: The duty paid on the disputed amount was found to be available as credit to the downstream DTA unit, making the entire exercise duty neutral. The credit was not hit by the restriction under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, because the payment was not found to have been made after suppression or wilful misstatement. Since the credit was admissible, the foundation for penalty and interest also failed.

Conclusion: Denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable and the penalty and interest did not survive.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order setting aside the demand was sustained, and the Revenue challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-related omission occurs in a duty-neutral setting without suppression or wilful misstatement, the extended period cannot be invoked and Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because the duty was paid after the event.

---