https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341300 The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the decision of the CESTAT, ruling that the limitation period for issuing a notice to the assessee under Section 11A(3) and (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be one year. The court found that the assessee's claim for Cenvat credit on construction items not directly related to manufacturing Cement and Clinker did not involve fraudulent intent or suppression of facts. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose, emphasizing the importance of factual analysis in determining limitation periods and assessing tax credit claims. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Apr 2017 07:30:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341300 The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the decision of the CESTAT, ruling that the limitation period for issuing a notice to the assessee under Section 11A(3) and (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be one year. The court found that the assessee's claim for Cenvat credit on construction items not directly related to manufacturing Cement and Clinker did not involve fraudulent intent or suppression of facts. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose, emphasizing the importance of factual analysis in determining limitation periods and assessing tax credit claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341300