https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126578 Correct application of the First In First Out method for computing inputs cleared as such determined the Cenvat credit reversal and the alleged differential excise duty. On examination of the records, the appellate authority held that the quantity had to be reckoned from January 2004 rather than December 2003, which changed the credit working and showed no short payment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that computation and accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning, so the demand of differential duty, interest and penalty was not sustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126578 Correct application of the First In First Out method for computing inputs cleared as such determined the Cenvat credit reversal and the alleged differential excise duty. On examination of the records, the appellate authority held that the quantity had to be reckoned from January 2004 rather than December 2003, which changed the credit working and showed no short payment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that computation and accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning, so the demand of differential duty, interest and penalty was not sustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126578