https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361485 The Tribunal held that the demand for inadmissible CENVAT Credit on outward transportation in March 2008 was not sustainable due to being time-barred. It was emphasized that Section 11AC could only be invoked in cases of suppression of facts or willful misstatement, which was not proven in this instance. The Tribunal found no malafide intent on the part of the appellant and distinguished the case from conflicting judgments, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 07:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361485 The Tribunal held that the demand for inadmissible CENVAT Credit on outward transportation in March 2008 was not sustainable due to being time-barred. It was emphasized that Section 11AC could only be invoked in cases of suppression of facts or willful misstatement, which was not proven in this instance. The Tribunal found no malafide intent on the part of the appellant and distinguished the case from conflicting judgments, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361485