https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775266 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU manufacturer against demands and penalties confirmed by the lower authorities. The appellant was entitled to claim refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for inputs used in exported finished goods. The Department's invocation of the extended period of limitation on grounds of suppression or fraud was rejected, as all relevant facts and issues had been previously examined and were known to the authorities. Citing the SC ruling in Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs, the tribunal held that mere failure to disclose or incorrect input-output ratios do not justify extended period demands without positive evidence of fraud. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was set aside. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:29:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775266 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU manufacturer against demands and penalties confirmed by the lower authorities. The appellant was entitled to claim refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for inputs used in exported finished goods. The Department's invocation of the extended period of limitation on grounds of suppression or fraud was rejected, as all relevant facts and issues had been previously examined and were known to the authorities. Citing the SC ruling in Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs, the tribunal held that mere failure to disclose or incorrect input-output ratios do not justify extended period demands without positive evidence of fraud. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775266