https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755156 The tribunal set aside the demand against the appellant, concluding it was time-barred under the extended period of limitation. It emphasized the absence of suppression of facts, noting that the appellant had paid excise duty on capital goods removal, which was recorded in their ER-1 return. The tribunal highlighted the department's awareness since 2010 and deemed the subsequent 2013 show cause notice untimely. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the impugned order, focusing on the time-bar issue without addressing the merits of the case. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jul 2024 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755156 The tribunal set aside the demand against the appellant, concluding it was time-barred under the extended period of limitation. It emphasized the absence of suppression of facts, noting that the appellant had paid excise duty on capital goods removal, which was recorded in their ER-1 return. The tribunal highlighted the department's awareness since 2010 and deemed the subsequent 2013 show cause notice untimely. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the impugned order, focusing on the time-bar issue without addressing the merits of the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755156