https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155547 Where the disputed Cenvat credit had been reversed, there was no subsisting simultaneous availment of that credit and depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the amount covered by the notice. On that factual basis, the foundational condition for applying the bar against simultaneous benefit under Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 was not established, so the demand with interest was not sustainable. The stated principle is that reversal of the disputed credit prevents a presumption of simultaneous availment for denial of credit. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155547 Where the disputed Cenvat credit had been reversed, there was no subsisting simultaneous availment of that credit and depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the amount covered by the notice. On that factual basis, the foundational condition for applying the bar against simultaneous benefit under Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 was not established, so the demand with interest was not sustainable. The stated principle is that reversal of the disputed credit prevents a presumption of simultaneous availment for denial of credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155547