https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756174 The CESTAT Chennai dismissed appeals as infructuous after appellant repaid the demanded amount and availed recredit. Regarding interest demand, the tribunal held that while the appellant's cenvat credit was eligible and refund claim was filed beyond the one-year limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944, the department failed to prove suppression of facts. The extended period for interest demand could not be invoked, making the interest demand time-barred and requiring it to be set aside. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:08:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756174 The CESTAT Chennai dismissed appeals as infructuous after appellant repaid the demanded amount and availed recredit. Regarding interest demand, the tribunal held that while the appellant's cenvat credit was eligible and refund claim was filed beyond the one-year limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944, the department failed to prove suppression of facts. The extended period for interest demand could not be invoked, making the interest demand time-barred and requiring it to be set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756174