https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375470 The case involved a dispute over the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit for additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips. The Revenue invoked the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act, alleging non-disclosure of information in ER-1 returns. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not suppressed facts warranting the extended limitation. Considering conflicting decisions on Cenvat credit, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal differentiated the case from relevant Supreme Court judgments, concluding that demands beyond the normal limitation period were barred. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Feb 2019 06:35:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375470 The case involved a dispute over the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit for additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips. The Revenue invoked the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act, alleging non-disclosure of information in ER-1 returns. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not suppressed facts warranting the extended limitation. Considering conflicting decisions on Cenvat credit, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal differentiated the case from relevant Supreme Court judgments, concluding that demands beyond the normal limitation period were barred. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375470