CENVAT credit is admissible if basic conditions are met and no express prohibition exists, regardless of whether a specific enabling provision was introduced later.

P. ANJANI KUMAR:

Insecticides India Ltd., assails the impugned order dated 27.04.2020 which upheld the order of the lower authority, who vide OIO dated 28.02.2018 confirmed the disallowance of CENVAT credit, of Rs.1,47,18,518/-, availed during the period 01.08.2012 to 19.01.2014, on the inputs procured from units who are otherwise availing the area-based exemption as contained under Notification 01/2010 dated 06.02.2010, for the reason that such credit was not admissible prior to the amendment in Rule 12 w.e.f. 19.01.2014.

Hence, this appeal.

2. Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submits elaborately on the issue of limitation. He submits that the appellants have been filing refund claims regularly and the same were being sanctioned; the fact, that the appellant was availing CENVAT credit on the inputs supplied by the units situated in Jammu & Kashmir, was known to the Department as early as 2012-13; the appellant and their suppliers fall in the same Commissionerate; the fact of availment of CENVAT credit has been disclosed in the statutory records and Returns like ER-1; therefore, extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of any material fact with intent to evade payment of duty as held in the following cases:

 Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - 2020 (41) G.S.T.L. 520 (Tri. - Bang.)

 SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 577 (Tri. - Del.)

 GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd.- 2017 (49) S.T.R. 242 (Tri. - Bang.)

 Sunil Forging & Steel Ind. - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 341 (Tri. - Mumbai)

 Tamil Nadu Housing Board – 1997 (74) ELT 9 (SC)

 Cosmo Dye Chemical – 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC)

 Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. – 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)

 Chemphar Drugs & Liniments – 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC)

 HMM Ltd. – 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC)

3. He further submits that in respect of other units availing the CENVAT credit, in respect of duty paid invoices, issued by units located in J & K has been settled by this Bench vide following Final Orders:

 Final Order No. 60811-60814/2021 dated 27.04.2021.

 Final Order No. 63159/2018 dated 14.09.2018.

 Final Order No. A/60401/2020 dated 24.09.2020.

 Final Order No. A/63472/2018 dated 19.11.2018

4. Shri Aniram Meena, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the issue is no longer res integra having been decided by this Bench in the case of Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. vide Final Order No.60483/2026 dated 03.08.2026. This Bench held that:

4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that issues to decide are as to whether the appellants are eligible for the CENVAT credit availed by them on the inputs procured by them from the units which were availing exemption under Notification No.01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 before the amendment in Rule 12 w.e.f. 20.01.2014 and as to whether, extended period of limitation is invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004 provides that a manufacturer or producer of final products are a provider of output service shall be allowed to take credit of the duties specified therein on –

(i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product or by the provider of output service on or after the 10th day of September, 2004;

and (ii) any input service received by the manufacturer of final product or by the provider of output services on or after the 10th da