https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360630 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, finding that the Department failed to prove the appellant availed CENVAT credit on common input services for trading activities. The appellant successfully argued against the invocation of the extended period for duty demand, emphasizing no intention to evade payment and the absence of suppression or misstatement. The appellate authority noted the failure to identify common input services for CENVAT credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant engaged in manufacturing Customs Built Turnkey Project items. en-us Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 May 2018 17:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360630 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, finding that the Department failed to prove the appellant availed CENVAT credit on common input services for trading activities. The appellant successfully argued against the invocation of the extended period for duty demand, emphasizing no intention to evade payment and the absence of suppression or misstatement. The appellate authority noted the failure to identify common input services for CENVAT credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant engaged in manufacturing Customs Built Turnkey Project items. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360630