https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371472 Movements of inputs and raw materials under the job-work procedure in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period where the duty liability issue on processed goods was already under conflicting Tribunal views and referred to a Larger Bench. On those facts, the record did not support suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The extended period of limitation was therefore not invocable, and the duty demand was time-barred. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Dec 2018 07:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371472 Movements of inputs and raw materials under the job-work procedure in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period where the duty liability issue on processed goods was already under conflicting Tribunal views and referred to a Larger Bench. On those facts, the record did not support suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The extended period of limitation was therefore not invocable, and the duty demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371472