https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337570 The extended period of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the adjudicating authorities recorded no finding of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. As the limitation objection had been specifically raised and the demand rested on rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with section 11A, the absence of the required mens rea finding meant the recovery for the relevant period could not survive. The demand was therefore treated as time-barred and the order was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337570 The extended period of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked because the adjudicating authorities recorded no finding of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. As the limitation objection had been specifically raised and the demand rested on rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with section 11A, the absence of the required mens rea finding meant the recovery for the relevant period could not survive. The demand was therefore treated as time-barred and the order was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337570