https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787683 Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 permits extended limitation only where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; routine detection by departmental audit or operation under self-assessment does not satisfy that threshold. On the facts, the alleged wrongful CENVAT credit was detected in audit but there is no specific allegation or material proving deliberate concealment or intent to evade by the registered appellant. Therefore the proviso is not invocable, the demand is time barred, and the appeal is allowed for the assessee. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:17:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787683 Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 permits extended limitation only where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; routine detection by departmental audit or operation under self-assessment does not satisfy that threshold. On the facts, the alleged wrongful CENVAT credit was detected in audit but there is no specific allegation or material proving deliberate concealment or intent to evade by the registered appellant. Therefore the proviso is not invocable, the demand is time barred, and the appeal is allowed for the assessee. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787683