2025 (2) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Extended limitation period cannot be invoked when CENVAT credit irregularities discovered during audit due to officer's negligence

M/s Vacmet India Limited (Unit-IV) Versus Commissioner, CGST, Ujjain

CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation could not be invoked for wrongful CENVAT credit availment discovered during audit. The tribunal ... Invocation of Extended period of limitation - wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- The fact that the alleged wrong availment was discovered during audit only means that the officer responsible to scrutinise the returns had not done his job. Otherwise, what was discovered by the audit could have as well been discovered by the officer. Thus the sole ground on which the extended period of limitation has been invoked is effectively that the assessing officer had not done his job. If the assessing officer did not do his job, it does not mean that the assessee has suppressed anything willfully or mis-stated. The demand and penalty cannot be sustained on the ground of limitation itself. There is no need to examine the merits of the case as the entire demand is time barred. Conclusion - The assessing officer's failure to scrutinize the returns properly did not constitute willful suppression by the appellant. Appeal allowed. The case involves an appeal by M/s Vacmet India Limited challenging the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,81,11,167/- for the period March 2016 to June 2017, along with the imposition of an equal amount as a penalty. The main issue revolves around the invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of the allegedly wrongly availed Cenvat credit.The appellant, a manufacturer of polyester film, avails Cenvat credit on input services and capital goods. During an audit, it was discovered that the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The show cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation, alleging suppression of facts by the appellant to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. The appellant contested the demand on the ground of limitation, arguing that the demand was time-barred as it was issued beyond the normal two-year limitation period stipulated under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and penalty, stating that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was lawful due to the suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. However, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the sole ground for invoking the extended period of limitation was the failure of the assessing officer to scrutinize the returns properly. The Tribunal held that the demand and penalty could not be sustained on the ground of limitation alone and set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant.The core legal question in this case was whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit was justified. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the proper application of the law concerning the limitation period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the requirement of willful suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation.The Tribunal found that the mere discovery of the alleged wrong availment during an audit did not justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The assessing officer's failure to scrutinize the returns properly did not constitute willful suppression by the appellant. Therefore, the demand and penalty were deemed time-barred, and the impugned order was set aside.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the demand and penalty could not be sustained solely on the ground of limitation and provided relief to the appellant by allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.