https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242995 The court dismissed two appeals challenging a CESTAT decision on a refund claim of excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,00,000. CESTAT found that the extended period for invoking the demand was unjustified as the addition of DEP in duty paid procured ENA was a known fact, not suppression. The case was remanded for quantifying the demand within the normal limitation period. The appellant's failure to produce relevant material for amending the appeals led to the court's decision that challenging CESTAT's factual findings was not feasible, resulting in the dismissal of both appeals. en-us Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:07:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242995 The court dismissed two appeals challenging a CESTAT decision on a refund claim of excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,00,000. CESTAT found that the extended period for invoking the demand was unjustified as the addition of DEP in duty paid procured ENA was a known fact, not suppression. The case was remanded for quantifying the demand within the normal limitation period. The appellant's failure to produce relevant material for amending the appeals led to the court's decision that challenging CESTAT's factual findings was not feasible, resulting in the dismissal of both appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242995