https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78187 CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed issues regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to suppression of facts leading to denial of CENVAT Credit under Rule 2(l) related to manufacturing and clearance of final products. Referring to precedents, it was held that for the extended period to be invoked, the Revenue must establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of laws with intent to evade duty. Since no new tangible evidence was presented, the extended period could not be invoked. Therefore, the demand for duty was found to be beyond the permissible time limit, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The denial of CENVAT Credit was not discussed on merits due to the limitation issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:21:16 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:21:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78187 CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed issues regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to suppression of facts leading to denial of CENVAT Credit under Rule 2(l) related to manufacturing and clearance of final products. Referring to precedents, it was held that for the extended period to be invoked, the Revenue must establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of laws with intent to evade duty. Since no new tangible evidence was presented, the extended period could not be invoked. Therefore, the demand for duty was found to be beyond the permissible time limit, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The denial of CENVAT Credit was not discussed on merits due to the limitation issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. Highlights Central Excise Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:21:16 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78187