https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359278 The judgment allowed the appeal on limitation grounds as the appellant had declared the disputed credit in the ER 1 return, making the notice issued in 2016 time-barred. The absence of a legal obligation to provide details of input services post-1996 was crucial, leading to the rejection of the extended limitation period. The judgment emphasized that the lack of separate credit details in returns did not indicate intent to evade duty, ultimately setting aside the impugned order due to the appellant's non-suppression of material facts. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2018 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359278 The judgment allowed the appeal on limitation grounds as the appellant had declared the disputed credit in the ER 1 return, making the notice issued in 2016 time-barred. The absence of a legal obligation to provide details of input services post-1996 was crucial, leading to the rejection of the extended limitation period. The judgment emphasized that the lack of separate credit details in returns did not indicate intent to evade duty, ultimately setting aside the impugned order due to the appellant's non-suppression of material facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359278