https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782463 The CESTAT held that Cenvat credit of additional and special additional customs duty on imported capital goods was not barred by Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the department failed to prove fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intentional contravention to evade duty. The appellant had transparently disclosed the disputed credit in ER-1 returns, giving the department full knowledge of availment. Consequently, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demand for November 2014 to June 2017 was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, cancelling recovery, interest, and penalty. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782463 The CESTAT held that Cenvat credit of additional and special additional customs duty on imported capital goods was not barred by Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the department failed to prove fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intentional contravention to evade duty. The appellant had transparently disclosed the disputed credit in ER-1 returns, giving the department full knowledge of availment. Consequently, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demand for November 2014 to June 2017 was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, cancelling recovery, interest, and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782463