ORDER : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of CESTAT raising following question for our consideration:- a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked by the revenue in view of the prevalent uncertainty on the relevant point of law and consequently setting aside demand of duty for wrongful availment of Central of Cenvat Credit by the assessee on the capital goods and excess utilization of Cenvat Credit on consultancy services availed by the assessee? b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority on the respondent? 2. In brief, the issue pertains to invoking extended period of limitation, which the Tribunal did not permit on the ground that the issue was highly debatable and had to be settled through a reference by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that before the Larger Bench pronounced its judgment in the year 2010, different Benches of the Tribunal had given conflicting decisions. That being the position, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal not permitting the Department to invoke larger period of limitation, which would essentially be available in cases of fraud, collusion, misstatement, etc. in order to avoid duty liability. Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.