https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763014 CESTAT Mumbai held that extended period of limitation under Section 11A proviso of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked for irregular CENVAT credit availment on inputs used for trading activities when adequate records were maintained. The tribunal found no suppression, willful mis-statement, or collusion as appellants maintained proper books of accounts capturing CENVAT credit details. Following Madras HC precedent in Shriram Value Services, demands beyond normal limitation period were set aside. Appeal allowed partially. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763014 CESTAT Mumbai held that extended period of limitation under Section 11A proviso of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked for irregular CENVAT credit availment on inputs used for trading activities when adequate records were maintained. The tribunal found no suppression, willful mis-statement, or collusion as appellants maintained proper books of accounts capturing CENVAT credit details. Following Madras HC precedent in Shriram Value Services, demands beyond normal limitation period were set aside. Appeal allowed partially. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763014