https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369507 The appellant, a manufacturer of Window Regulator for Motor Vehicles, was issued a Show Cause Notice for alleged suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The Notice proposed demanding differential duty under Rule 14(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant argued that duty paid was availed as CENVAT Credit by the ancillary manufacturer, ensuring revenue neutrality. The Member (Judicial) found that the Revenue needlessly extended the limitation period as there was no revenue loss, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential benefits. The impugned Order and demand were deemed unsustainable. en-us Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:01:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369507 The appellant, a manufacturer of Window Regulator for Motor Vehicles, was issued a Show Cause Notice for alleged suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The Notice proposed demanding differential duty under Rule 14(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant argued that duty paid was availed as CENVAT Credit by the ancillary manufacturer, ensuring revenue neutrality. The Member (Judicial) found that the Revenue needlessly extended the limitation period as there was no revenue loss, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential benefits. The impugned Order and demand were deemed unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369507