https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357119 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a job worker, in a cenvat credit dispute. Despite acknowledging the issue against them, the appellant successfully argued for limitation grounds based on prior authorization disclosure to the Deputy Commissioner. The Revenue's position was refuted due to lack of specific mention in the authorization. Citing a similar precedent, the Tribunal found no willful suppression of facts and allowed the appeal on limitation grounds. The decision emphasized the significance of disclosing credit intentions to impact the limitation period for raising demands, ultimately setting aside the impugned order. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Mar 2018 07:23:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357119 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a job worker, in a cenvat credit dispute. Despite acknowledging the issue against them, the appellant successfully argued for limitation grounds based on prior authorization disclosure to the Deputy Commissioner. The Revenue's position was refuted due to lack of specific mention in the authorization. Citing a similar precedent, the Tribunal found no willful suppression of facts and allowed the appeal on limitation grounds. The decision emphasized the significance of disclosing credit intentions to impact the limitation period for raising demands, ultimately setting aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357119