https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362160 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai upheld the demand of interest despite evidence of non-utilization of credit, citing insufficient proof of non-utilization due to missing data. The Commissioner's order acknowledged the inapplicability of penalty without fraud, suppression, or misstatement. Following a precedent from the High Court of Delhi, the limitation clause was deemed applicable to both duty and interest demands, restricting the interest demand to the normal limitation period. The rectification of mistake was partially allowed, emphasizing adherence to prescribed limitations. en-us Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:21:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362160 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai upheld the demand of interest despite evidence of non-utilization of credit, citing insufficient proof of non-utilization due to missing data. The Commissioner's order acknowledged the inapplicability of penalty without fraud, suppression, or misstatement. Following a precedent from the High Court of Delhi, the limitation clause was deemed applicable to both duty and interest demands, restricting the interest demand to the normal limitation period. The rectification of mistake was partially allowed, emphasizing adherence to prescribed limitations. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362160