https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176735 The appellant was alleged to have availed excess Cenvat credit on capital goods and subsequently removed them from the factory. The revenue claimed that the appellant reversed a portion of the credit by valuing the goods at a lower price, resulting in a differential amount of credit availed. However, the Tribunal found that the demand was barred by limitation as the appellant had intimated the duty payment particulars in the monthly return, negating any suppression of facts. Consequently, the demand against the appellant was set aside, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and timely reporting to avoid such issues. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176735 The appellant was alleged to have availed excess Cenvat credit on capital goods and subsequently removed them from the factory. The revenue claimed that the appellant reversed a portion of the credit by valuing the goods at a lower price, resulting in a differential amount of credit availed. However, the Tribunal found that the demand was barred by limitation as the appellant had intimated the duty payment particulars in the monthly return, negating any suppression of facts. Consequently, the demand against the appellant was set aside, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and timely reporting to avoid such issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176735