https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248816 A later show cause notice on the same facts could not invoke the extended period on the basis of suppression once the department already knew the material facts, so the resulting demand was unsustainable. Reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to exempted clearances, together with interest, was treated as sufficient in principle, and the liability could not be mechanically computed as 8% or 10% of the sale price without verifying the actual credit position; the matter required quantification on records. Appeals against an order passed under the Finance Act, 2010 were not maintainable because that order was not appealable under the Central Excise Act framework. en-us Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248816 A later show cause notice on the same facts could not invoke the extended period on the basis of suppression once the department already knew the material facts, so the resulting demand was unsustainable. Reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to exempted clearances, together with interest, was treated as sufficient in principle, and the liability could not be mechanically computed as 8% or 10% of the sale price without verifying the actual credit position; the matter required quantification on records. Appeals against an order passed under the Finance Act, 2010 were not maintainable because that order was not appealable under the Central Excise Act framework. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248816