https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753569 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, ruling that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant. The Revenue failed to establish wilful suppression of facts or misstatement with cogent evidence, as required under Section 11A proviso. Following precedents from Surya Vistacom and Meghmani Dyes cases, the Tribunal held that details culled from available records without fresh tangible materials cannot justify extended limitation. Since the demand was time-barred, the question of CENVAT credit admissibility on merits was not examined. The impugned order was set aside solely on limitation grounds. en-us Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2024 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753569 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, ruling that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant. The Revenue failed to establish wilful suppression of facts or misstatement with cogent evidence, as required under Section 11A proviso. Following precedents from Surya Vistacom and Meghmani Dyes cases, the Tribunal held that details culled from available records without fresh tangible materials cannot justify extended limitation. Since the demand was time-barred, the question of CENVAT credit admissibility on merits was not examined. The impugned order was set aside solely on limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753569