https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392245 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the demand for an extended period of limitation was not justified as there was no suppression of facts by the respondent. Additionally, the court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling on the penalty imposition issue, emphasizing that the respondent had consistently disclosed availing the benefit on pipe fittings, and there was no unreasonable decision made by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decisions were upheld in both issues raised by the appellant. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392245 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the demand for an extended period of limitation was not justified as there was no suppression of facts by the respondent. Additionally, the court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling on the penalty imposition issue, emphasizing that the respondent had consistently disclosed availing the benefit on pipe fittings, and there was no unreasonable decision made by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decisions were upheld in both issues raised by the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392245