Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The CESTAT allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU manufacturer against demands raised by the Department for recovery of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to claim refund for inputs used in exported finished goods, and the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation on grounds of suppression, mis-declaration, or fraud, as all relevant facts had been previously examined by the Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal found no new evidence justifying extended period invocation. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, affirming the appellants' eligibility for refund without liability for extended period demands.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
