https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124926 The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of cotton yarn and irregular availing of MODVAT credit. The original authority confirmed demands and penalties, but the lower appellate authority found no evidence of duty evasion for a specific quantity of cotton yarn. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's decisions, justifying non-confiscation of certain goods and allowing MODVAT credit post-rectification. Both appeals were dismissed on 25-8-2008, emphasizing the absence of duty evasion evidence and the eligibility for MODVAT credit after rectification. en-us Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:06:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124926 The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of cotton yarn and irregular availing of MODVAT credit. The original authority confirmed demands and penalties, but the lower appellate authority found no evidence of duty evasion for a specific quantity of cotton yarn. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's decisions, justifying non-confiscation of certain goods and allowing MODVAT credit post-rectification. Both appeals were dismissed on 25-8-2008, emphasizing the absence of duty evasion evidence and the eligibility for MODVAT credit after rectification. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124926