https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271579 The appeal challenged an order-in-original regarding recovery of Central Excise duty short paid by the appellant. The issue was the appellant retaining a portion of VAT under a state scheme, leading to a demand for additional central excise duty. While not disputing the valuation, the appellant contested the time bar aspect of the first demand, citing lack of fraud. The Tribunal, following Supreme Court precedent, ruled in favor of the appellant's interpretation of sales tax deduction. Due to the absence of fraud and inadequate reasoning for invoking the extended period, the penalty was set aside, partially allowing the appeal. en-us Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:12:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271579 The appeal challenged an order-in-original regarding recovery of Central Excise duty short paid by the appellant. The issue was the appellant retaining a portion of VAT under a state scheme, leading to a demand for additional central excise duty. While not disputing the valuation, the appellant contested the time bar aspect of the first demand, citing lack of fraud. The Tribunal, following Supreme Court precedent, ruled in favor of the appellant's interpretation of sales tax deduction. Due to the absence of fraud and inadequate reasoning for invoking the extended period, the penalty was set aside, partially allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271579