https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759165 CESTAT Kolkata held that the demand for interest on differential duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period of one year. The tribunal found no evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement to invoke the extended limitation period, noting that the department was fully aware of the appellant's transaction methodology. Following Supreme Court precedent in TVS Whirlpool case, the tribunal ruled that limitation periods for principal amounts should apply equally to interest claims. The demand for interest and penalty were set aside as unsustainable. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759165 CESTAT Kolkata held that the demand for interest on differential duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period of one year. The tribunal found no evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement to invoke the extended limitation period, noting that the department was fully aware of the appellant's transaction methodology. Following Supreme Court precedent in TVS Whirlpool case, the tribunal ruled that limitation periods for principal amounts should apply equally to interest claims. The demand for interest and penalty were set aside as unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759165