https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249403 The case involved a dispute over the time-barring of a demand for recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and penalty, rejecting the appellant's argument that the demand was time-barred due to the non-mentioning of the proviso to Section 11-A in the show cause notice. The Commissioner emphasized that the mention of Section 11-A covered the proviso, validating the demand and penalty. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision and highlighting the importance of clarity in show cause notices in excise matters. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249403 The case involved a dispute over the time-barring of a demand for recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and penalty, rejecting the appellant's argument that the demand was time-barred due to the non-mentioning of the proviso to Section 11-A in the show cause notice. The Commissioner emphasized that the mention of Section 11-A covered the proviso, validating the demand and penalty. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision and highlighting the importance of clarity in show cause notices in excise matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249403