Cenvat credit and limitation: divergent Revenue views prevented use of the extended period to deny credit.

Cenvat credit entitlement under Notification No. 01/10-CE was affirmed for the relevant period, as the Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same issue and found no basis to deny credit merely because the benefit had been questioned before the 2014 amendment. Where the Revenue itself had taken divergent views on the same credit entitlement, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified. As the show cause notices were issued on that extended basis, the denial of credit could not be sustained and the impugned orders were set aside, with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied to the assessees for the relevant period on the ground that, prior to the amendment brought about by Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T.) dated 20.1.2014, the benefit was not available under Notification No. 01/10-CE dated 6.2.2010, and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appeals involved the same factual matrix as an earlier Tribunal decision on identical issue. The Tribunal followed that precedent and noted that where the Revenue itself had taken divergent views on the entitlement to credit, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified. Since the show cause notices had been issued by invoking the extended period, the denial of credit could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was held admissible and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue has adopted divergent views on the same credit entitlement issue, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny the credit.

---