https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90652 The CESTAT held that the appellant did not suppress facts with intent to evade central excise duty, as records were properly maintained, VAT compliance was followed, and transactions were transparent. Although the appellant crossed the Rs. 1.5 crore threshold for excise duty liability based on MRP less abatement, the extended period of limitation for recovery could not be invoked due to lack of intent to evade duty. Allegations of clandestine clearance were unsubstantiated. The demand confirmed under extended limitation was unsustainable, and since the appellant did not dispute duty liability before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal limited its consideration to penalties. Penalties imposed on the appellant firm were set aside due to ..... en-us Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:30:12 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:30:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90652 The CESTAT held that the appellant did not suppress facts with intent to evade central excise duty, as records were properly maintained, VAT compliance was followed, and transactions were transparent. Although the appellant crossed the Rs. 1.5 crore threshold for excise duty liability based on MRP less abatement, the extended period of limitation for recovery could not be invoked due to lack of intent to evade duty. Allegations of clandestine clearance were unsubstantiated. The demand confirmed under extended limitation was unsustainable, and since the appellant did not dispute duty liability before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal limited its consideration to penalties. Penalties imposed on the appellant firm were set aside due to ..... Highlights Central Excise Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:30:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90652