Prospective amendment and limitation principles protect cenvat credit where statutory disclosure negates suppression and extended period claims fail.

Iron and steel articles used as supporting structurals for construction were held to remain eligible for cenvat credit for the period before 7 July 2009, because the exclusionary amendment was treated as prospective and not clarificatory. The Tribunal noted that the later High Court view displaced the earlier Larger Bench approach and that credit could not be denied for the prior period. On limitation, the extended period was unavailable because the credit was reflected in statutory records and returns, mere non-disclosure of a separately unrequired declaration did not amount to suppression, and a later change in law could not by itself sustain extended limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether iron and steel articles used as supporting structurals for construction were eligible for cenvat credit for the period prior to 7 July 2009; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether iron and steel articles used as supporting structurals for construction were eligible for cenvat credit for the period prior to 7 July 2009.

Analysis: The relevant amendment excluding such goods from the ambit of inputs took effect from 7 July 2009. The Tribunal noted that the earlier Larger Bench view treating the amendment as clarificatory and retrospective stood effectively displaced by the later High Court view that the amendment was not clarificatory and operated only prospectively. On that basis, and without entering into the factual controversy as to the exact use of the goods, the credit for the prior period could not be denied.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible for the period in dispute, being prior to 7 July 2009, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued after the relevant period, while the credit had been reflected in the statutory records and returns. Mere non-disclosure of a fact not required to be separately declared did not establish suppression or mala fide intention. The Tribunal further noted that, during the relevant period, judicial views were in favour of the assessee, and a later reversal of law could not by itself justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was not available to the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exclusionary amendment is prospective, credit cannot be denied for the prior period; and the extended limitation period is unavailable absent suppression or mala fide intention when the availment is disclosed in statutory records and returns.

---