Extended limitation and penalty on Cenvat credit barred by final finding of no suppression, but limitation facts required remand.

Absence of suppression and mala fide, having attained finality, barred invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty for denial of Cenvat credit, because the dispute was treated as one of interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. However, the Revenue's contention that part of the demand may still fall within the normal limitation period, and the assessee's claim that credit was taken only in April 2010, required factual verification. The matter was therefore remanded to the original authority to examine the precise period of availment of credit and the limitation issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for denial of Cenvat credit and penalty when the finding of absence of suppression and mala fide had attained finality, and whether the matter required remand for examination of the period during which the credit was taken.

Analysis: The denial of penalty had already been founded on a finding that there was no suppression of facts and no intention to evade duty, and that finding was not challenged by the Revenue. On that basis, the dispute was treated as one of interpretation rather than deliberate wrongdoing, which militated against invocation of the extended period and against penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. At the same time, the Revenue's submission that part of the demand might fall within the normal limitation period, along with the assessee's plea that credit was taken only in April 2010, required factual examination by the original adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be sustained on the existing finding of absence of suppression and mala fide, but the matter was remanded to examine the precise period of availment of credit and the limitation aspect.

---