https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356389 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demands for the period October 2007 to December 2009 as time-barred due to limitation issues. The appellant's argument that repeated audits should have identified any discrepancies during that period was accepted. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not properly addressing the limitation aspect. Additionally, no penalty was imposed for the period where the appellant had already reversed the amount upon audit identification, as compliance was deemed sufficient. The decision emphasized the importance of addressing limitation issues and following legal principles in such cases. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 06:31:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356389 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demands for the period October 2007 to December 2009 as time-barred due to limitation issues. The appellant's argument that repeated audits should have identified any discrepancies during that period was accepted. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not properly addressing the limitation aspect. Additionally, no penalty was imposed for the period where the appellant had already reversed the amount upon audit identification, as compliance was deemed sufficient. The decision emphasized the importance of addressing limitation issues and following legal principles in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356389