https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125330 The demand for excess Cenvat credit availed on engraved printing cylinders as capital goods was confirmed against the appellants. The Revenue argued the cylinders should be treated as capital goods, not inputs. The Tribunal held that the extended period for demand could not be invoked due to defacement of invoices and differences in opinion on the cylinder's classification. The demand beyond one year from the show cause notice was found to fail due to limitations. The Tribunal directed re-quantification of the demand, limiting it to interest for the excess credit period, and remanded the matter for further examination by the Original Adjudicating Authority. en-us Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:31:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125330 The demand for excess Cenvat credit availed on engraved printing cylinders as capital goods was confirmed against the appellants. The Revenue argued the cylinders should be treated as capital goods, not inputs. The Tribunal held that the extended period for demand could not be invoked due to defacement of invoices and differences in opinion on the cylinder's classification. The demand beyond one year from the show cause notice was found to fail due to limitations. The Tribunal directed re-quantification of the demand, limiting it to interest for the excess credit period, and remanded the matter for further examination by the Original Adjudicating Authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125330