https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266925 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand of duty, interest, and penalty as barred by limitation for the period May 2003 to October 2004. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of intent to evade payment of duty, confirmation of suppliers' existence, and application of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2002. The penalty imposed on the Director of the appellant company was also overturned. The case highlighted the significance of statutory limitations, supplier existence, and proper documentation in tax disputes. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:31:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266925 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand of duty, interest, and penalty as barred by limitation for the period May 2003 to October 2004. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of intent to evade payment of duty, confirmation of suppliers' existence, and application of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2002. The penalty imposed on the Director of the appellant company was also overturned. The case highlighted the significance of statutory limitations, supplier existence, and proper documentation in tax disputes. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266925