Cenvat credit on promotional tattoos rejected, but limitation and penalty failed where records disclosed the relevant facts.

Tattoos supplied inside chewing gum packs as promotional items were not eligible inputs for Cenvat credit, so the credit claim failed on merits. However, where the credit entries and related facts were disclosed in statutory records and the show cause notice was issued on scrutiny of those records, suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent could not be inferred. The extended limitation period was therefore unavailable, the demand was confined to the normal period, penalty was set aside, and the matter was remitted for recomputation of the admissible demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tattoos supplied inside packs of chewing gum as a sales promotion item were eligible inputs for Cenvat credit; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable.

Issue (i): Whether tattoos supplied inside packs of chewing gum as a sales promotion item were eligible inputs for Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on an identical dispute and held that tattoos supplied with bubble gum/chewing gum as a promotional item could not be treated as eligible inputs for credit. On merits, the assessee's claim to credit therefore failed.

Conclusion: Decided against the assessee on eligibility to Cenvat credit.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable.

Analysis: The credit entries were reflected in the statutory records, and the notice was issued on the basis of scrutiny of those records. In these circumstances, suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intention was not made out, so the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period, the matter was remanded for recomputation accordingly, and penalty was set aside.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee on limitation and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The credit disallowance on merits was sustained, but the demand was restricted to the normal period with the penalty annulled and the case remitted for quantification of the admissible demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant credit and related facts are reflected in statutory records and the notice is founded on those records, suppression or mala fide cannot be inferred to justify the extended period of limitation or penalty.

---