https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191093 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming the demand for wrongly availed cenvat credit and penalties under Rule 15(2). It held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without specific allegations supported by tangible evidence of suppression or misstatement. As the show cause notice lacked such specifics and was issued after the statutory period, it was deemed time-barred and lacking merit. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete proof to establish fraudulent intent and malafied activities, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal precedents emphasizing evidentiary requirements. en-us Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:55:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191093 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming the demand for wrongly availed cenvat credit and penalties under Rule 15(2). It held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without specific allegations supported by tangible evidence of suppression or misstatement. As the show cause notice lacked such specifics and was issued after the statutory period, it was deemed time-barred and lacking merit. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete proof to establish fraudulent intent and malafied activities, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal precedents emphasizing evidentiary requirements. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191093