https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784398 The dominant issue was whether the extended limitation under s. 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act could be invoked to recover allegedly irregular CENVAT credit distributed in breach of r. 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that "suppression" must be wilful and with intent to evade duty, as construed by the SC, and cannot be presumed merely because the discrepancy emerged during audit. As the notice and appellate order did not specify any deliberate non-disclosure in statutory returns or other material facts withheld with such intent, and the department could have scrutinized filed returns, the statutory preconditions for extended limitation were not met; consequently, the demand was time-barred, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784398 The dominant issue was whether the extended limitation under s. 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act could be invoked to recover allegedly irregular CENVAT credit distributed in breach of r. 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that "suppression" must be wilful and with intent to evade duty, as construed by the SC, and cannot be presumed merely because the discrepancy emerged during audit. As the notice and appellate order did not specify any deliberate non-disclosure in statutory returns or other material facts withheld with such intent, and the department could have scrutinized filed returns, the statutory preconditions for extended limitation were not met; consequently, the demand was time-barred, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784398