Extended limitation for CENVAT credit recovery fails where returns disclosed the credit and bona fide belief was supported by conflicting views.

Extended limitation for recovery of CENVAT credit was held unavailable where the assessee had filed ER-1 returns and disclosed the credit taken, the materials received, the supplier's name and the goods' usage in the factory. The existence of conflicting Tribunal views on eligibility supported a bona fide belief that the credit was admissible. On those facts, the ingredients for invoking the extended period were not made out, even assuming the credit was ultimately inadmissible. Remand was considered unnecessary because the limitation issue itself defeated the Revenue's case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of cenvat credit, where the assessee had filed ER-1 returns and disclosed the particulars of credit taken and usage of the goods, and where conflicting Tribunal views existed on eligibility.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished ER-1 returns and also supplied details of the credit availed, including the materials received, the supplier's name and their usage in the factory. The availability of contrary Tribunal views during the relevant period supported a bona fide belief regarding eligibility. In these circumstances, even if the credit were ultimately held inadmissible, the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were not established. A remand was found unnecessary because the limitation issue itself negatived the Revenue's case.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---