https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334667 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal, holding that CENVAT Credit on MS items used for fabrication was admissible, the demand for the period before a specified date was time-barred, denial of credit based on contractor invoices was unjustified, and the invocation of the extended period for demand due to alleged suppression of facts was not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of "suppression" and lack of deliberate concealment, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and granting consequential reliefs. en-us Mon, 12 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:30:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334667 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal, holding that CENVAT Credit on MS items used for fabrication was admissible, the demand for the period before a specified date was time-barred, denial of credit based on contractor invoices was unjustified, and the invocation of the extended period for demand due to alleged suppression of facts was not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of "suppression" and lack of deliberate concealment, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and granting consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334667