https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762691 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside demand for recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly availed on pet bottles manufactured for captive consumption during August 2008 to May 2010. The appellant voluntarily informed the Department in June 2010 about duty liability and paid duty along with interest of Rs. 8,84,585 in cash. CESTAT held that since duty was paid voluntarily without dispute, no Show Cause Notice was required under Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The extended limitation period could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was wrongly applied by Department. Penalty under Rule 26 was also set aside as requisite ingredients were absent. Both appeals were allowed. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Dec 2024 21:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762691 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside demand for recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly availed on pet bottles manufactured for captive consumption during August 2008 to May 2010. The appellant voluntarily informed the Department in June 2010 about duty liability and paid duty along with interest of Rs. 8,84,585 in cash. CESTAT held that since duty was paid voluntarily without dispute, no Show Cause Notice was required under Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The extended limitation period could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was wrongly applied by Department. Penalty under Rule 26 was also set aside as requisite ingredients were absent. Both appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762691