https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434576 CESTAT HYDERABAD - AT allowed the appeal, setting aside demands for August 2012-March 2016 and rejecting invocation of the extended limitation period. Tribunal found no fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression by the appellants and held that allocation by ISD, including quantity-based distribution, was effectively turnover-based and compliant with Rule 7(d) CCR, 2004. The appellants had duly recorded and utilized CENVAT credit in ER returns, so neither extended nor normal period demands, nor interest and penalties, were sustainable. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434576 CESTAT HYDERABAD - AT allowed the appeal, setting aside demands for August 2012-March 2016 and rejecting invocation of the extended limitation period. Tribunal found no fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression by the appellants and held that allocation by ISD, including quantity-based distribution, was effectively turnover-based and compliant with Rule 7(d) CCR, 2004. The appellants had duly recorded and utilized CENVAT credit in ER returns, so neither extended nor normal period demands, nor interest and penalties, were sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434576