https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779322 CESTAT, Chennai (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal found that Revenue had prior knowledge of ER-1 returns and other documents showing the appellant's use of accumulated CENVAT credit on both capital goods and finished goods, and earlier SCNs on the same facts had culminated in orders reversed on appeal and made final. Accordingly, invocation of the extended period alleging suppression was unsustainable. Because the extended-period finding was quashed, the tribunal need not decide the substantive merit of the duty demand. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Oct 2025 12:09:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779322 CESTAT, Chennai (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal found that Revenue had prior knowledge of ER-1 returns and other documents showing the appellant's use of accumulated CENVAT credit on both capital goods and finished goods, and earlier SCNs on the same facts had culminated in orders reversed on appeal and made final. Accordingly, invocation of the extended period alleging suppression was unsustainable. Because the extended-period finding was quashed, the tribunal need not decide the substantive merit of the duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779322