#Extended Period Limitation

CESTAT ruled that manufacturers can claim CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs sourced from units exempt under Notification 01/2010-CE, even for periods before the Rule 12 amendment. The tribunal also rejected the revenue's attempt to invoke an extended limitation period, safeguarding businesses from retroactive credit denial.

CESTAT Chennai rules that the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 for service tax demands cannot be invoked without concrete evidence of wilful suppression, fraud, or intent to evade tax. The ruling sets a precedent that mere non-filing or interpretational disputes do not justify extended limitation periods, impacting taxpayers facing retrospective demands.

CESTAT Kolkata rules that royalty deductions made by state authorities from contractors under Form M/N for mineral procurement do not trigger reverse charge liability under service tax law. This shields works contract sub-contractors from retrospective tax demands based solely on balance sheet entries, setting a critical precedent for mining and infrastructure contractors nationwide.

CESTAT Chennai rules that when customs authorities have consistently accepted a tariff classification over years, the department cannot later allege suppression to extend the limitation period for duty demand. This protects importers and logistics firms from retrospective penalties when classifications were openly and repeatedly approved, reinforcing legal certainty in trade compliance.