https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325298 Absence of suppression and mala fide, having attained finality, barred invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty for denial of Cenvat credit, because the dispute was treated as one of interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. However, the Revenue's contention that part of the demand may still fall within the normal limitation period, and the assessee's claim that credit was taken only in April 2010, required factual verification. The matter was therefore remanded to the original authority to examine the precise period of availment of credit and the limitation issue. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:11:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325298 Absence of suppression and mala fide, having attained finality, barred invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty for denial of Cenvat credit, because the dispute was treated as one of interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. However, the Revenue's contention that part of the demand may still fall within the normal limitation period, and the assessee's claim that credit was taken only in April 2010, required factual verification. The matter was therefore remanded to the original authority to examine the precise period of availment of credit and the limitation issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325298