https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448378 Invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to s. 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for alleged irregular availment of CENVAT credit was in issue. The Tribunal held that extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax, and that mere ineligibility to credit does not establish deliberate concealment. As the returns disclosed the relevant particulars and neither the SCN nor the order identified any specific non-disclosure or conduct evidencing intent to evade, suppression with requisite mens rea was not proved. Consequently, the extended period was inapplicable; the demand, interest, and penalty founded entirely on extended limitation were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448378 Invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to s. 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for alleged irregular availment of CENVAT credit was in issue. The Tribunal held that extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax, and that mere ineligibility to credit does not establish deliberate concealment. As the returns disclosed the relevant particulars and neither the SCN nor the order identified any specific non-disclosure or conduct evidencing intent to evade, suppression with requisite mens rea was not proved. Consequently, the extended period was inapplicable; the demand, interest, and penalty founded entirely on extended limitation were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448378