Cenvat credit on inputs for exempted goods denied, while extended limitation failed for lack of suppression.

Credit on common inputs used for exempted clearances was held inadmissible under the Central Excise and Cenvat Credit framework, because the goods manufactured during the relevant period were exempt from duty. The later demand for the earlier period was treated as time-barred, since the department was already aware of the underlying facts from an earlier notice and suppression could not be invoked to extend limitation. Penalty was nevertheless justified for wrongful availment of credit, but its quantum was reduced in light of the time-barred portion and the surrounding facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit on common inputs was admissible when the goods manufactured during the relevant period were exempted from duty; (ii) Whether the demand for the earlier period was barred by limitation for want of suppression, and whether penalty was warranted and liable to be reduced.

Issue (i): Whether credit on common inputs was admissible when the goods manufactured during the relevant period were exempted from duty.

Analysis: The appellants manufactured and cleared only exempted goods during the relevant period. On that factual basis, the use of common inputs for exempted clearances did not permit availment of credit under the Central Excise regime and the Cenvat Credit scheme.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and credit was held inadmissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the earlier period was barred by limitation for want of suppression, and whether penalty was warranted and liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The later notice repeated the same factual foundation already known to the department when the earlier notice had been issued. In such circumstances, the extended period could not be invoked on the basis of suppression. As to penalty, the wrongful availment of credit justified imposition, but the quantum was moderated in view of the time-barred portion of the demand and the surrounding facts.

Conclusion: The demand for the earlier period was set aside as time-barred, while penalty was sustained with reduction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of exclusion of the time-barred demand, while the denial of credit on merits and the imposition of reduced penalties were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department was already aware of the relevant facts from an earlier notice, the same facts could not be treated as suppression for invoking the extended limitation period; however, credit is not available on inputs used exclusively for exempted clearances.

---