https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383601 The appellant was accused of wrongfully availing CENVAT Credit on certain goods, leading to allegations of non-compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules. The Revenue sought to justify an extended limitation period based on alleged intent to evade duty, but the appellant argued against specific allegations of suppression. The appellant rectified the credit discrepancy voluntarily, reflecting it in their returns. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving suppression for invoking extended limitation periods, ultimately setting aside the order for the disputed period due to lack of specific suppression allegations in the Show Cause Notice. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jul 2019 07:18:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383601 The appellant was accused of wrongfully availing CENVAT Credit on certain goods, leading to allegations of non-compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules. The Revenue sought to justify an extended limitation period based on alleged intent to evade duty, but the appellant argued against specific allegations of suppression. The appellant rectified the credit discrepancy voluntarily, reflecting it in their returns. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving suppression for invoking extended limitation periods, ultimately setting aside the order for the disputed period due to lack of specific suppression allegations in the Show Cause Notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383601