https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359726 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the absence of fraudulent intent and the lack of grounds for invoking the extended period for demand. Despite the non-existence of the 1st stage dealer, the appellant's transactions with the genuine 2nd stage dealer were deemed legitimate. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's good faith in their purchases and differentiated the case from precedents involving non-existent suppliers. Consequently, the demand was set aside based on limitation, without addressing the substantive issues raised by the Revenue. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2018 08:47:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359726 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the absence of fraudulent intent and the lack of grounds for invoking the extended period for demand. Despite the non-existence of the 1st stage dealer, the appellant's transactions with the genuine 2nd stage dealer were deemed legitimate. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's good faith in their purchases and differentiated the case from precedents involving non-existent suppliers. Consequently, the demand was set aside based on limitation, without addressing the substantive issues raised by the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359726