1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute involving self-credit and CENVAT credit claims. The tribunal comprehensively examined allegations of erroneous refund and excess credit availment. After meticulous review, the tribunal found insufficient investigative evidence to substantiate revenue's claims of fraudulent credit utilization. The department failed to establish a substantive case of wrongful credit, with no comprehensive stock verification, buyer-end investigation, or conclusive documentation of alleged irregularities. The tribunal emphasized that burden of proof lies with the revenue department. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, quashing demands based on assumptions and inconclusive findings. The tribunal's decision underscored procedural rigor and evidentiary standards in tax credit disputes, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants by rejecting revenue's unsubstantiated allegations.