Extended limitation fails without suppression; importer-issued invoices remained valid for Cenvat credit before the 2014 registration rule.

Where statutory returns disclosed the relevant facts, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the alleged clandestine removal of coke, as there was no suppression or concealment; the duty demand and penalty on that ground failed. Cenvat credit of CVD paid on imported coal was also allowed because the invoice issued by the importer remained a valid credit document for the disputed period, and the 2014 registration condition under Notification No. 8/2014-Central Excise (N.T.) applied only prospectively, not to prior transactions. The Revenue's challenge therefore did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty on the alleged clandestine removal of coke was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked. (ii) Whether Cenvat credit of CVD paid on imported coal was admissible on the strength of invoices issued by the importer and whether the 2014 registration requirement applied retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty on the alleged clandestine removal of coke was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The demand covered the period January 2013 to January 2014, while the notice was issued by invoking the extended period. The appellant had been filing ER-1 returns and had disclosed availment of the benefit of Notification No. 67/1995-CE. Since the relevant facts were already within the knowledge of the Revenue, the foundation for invoking the extended period was absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the duty demand on this issue failed; the confirmed demand and consequential penalty were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit of CVD paid on imported coal was admissible on the strength of invoices issued by the importer and whether the 2014 registration requirement applied retrospectively.

Analysis: The credit denial was based on Notification No. 8/2014-Central Excise (N.T.), which introduced a separate registration requirement for importers issuing cenvatable invoices from 01.04.2014. The disputed credit related to a prior period, so the notification could operate only prospectively. On that basis, the invoice issued by the importer remained a valid document for credit availment for the period in dispute.

Conclusion: The credit was rightly allowed, the Revenue's challenge failed, and the denial of Cenvat credit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both the limitation issue and the credit eligibility issue, and the Revenue's appeal did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: When the relevant facts are disclosed in statutory returns, the extended period cannot be invoked without suppression or concealment; and a notification imposing a new registration condition for availing credit operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospective.

---