https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381718 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order. It emphasized that the extended period was inapplicable, and interest on duty could not be enforced due to the absence of suppression. The appellant's refund was partly allowed, rejecting the CENVAT credit refund. The Tribunal found no lapsing provision for unutilized CENVAT credit, citing relevant case laws and circulars. The Department's invocation of the extended period for duty demand was deemed illogical, as the appellant couldn't have known about the High Court order beforehand. Recovery of excess credit through a show cause notice was considered legally baseless. en-us Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2019 22:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381718 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order. It emphasized that the extended period was inapplicable, and interest on duty could not be enforced due to the absence of suppression. The appellant's refund was partly allowed, rejecting the CENVAT credit refund. The Tribunal found no lapsing provision for unutilized CENVAT credit, citing relevant case laws and circulars. The Department's invocation of the extended period for duty demand was deemed illogical, as the appellant couldn't have known about the High Court order beforehand. Recovery of excess credit through a show cause notice was considered legally baseless. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381718