https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125417 Refund of penalty and Cenvat credit was not allowed because the appellant produced no evidence of deposit and repeatedly failed to appear before the adjudicating authorities and the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals)' finding was upheld, with the Tribunal treating the claim as unsupported on record and the appeal as an abuse of process of law. The Revenue's reliance on Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. was rejected as distinguishable, since that precedent involved surrender of licence and no similar factual finding existed here. The appeal was dismissed for want of evidence and persistent non-appearance. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:12:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125417 Refund of penalty and Cenvat credit was not allowed because the appellant produced no evidence of deposit and repeatedly failed to appear before the adjudicating authorities and the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals)' finding was upheld, with the Tribunal treating the claim as unsupported on record and the appeal as an abuse of process of law. The Revenue's reliance on Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. was rejected as distinguishable, since that precedent involved surrender of licence and no similar factual finding existed here. The appeal was dismissed for want of evidence and persistent non-appearance. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125417