https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210187 A rebate order based on an erroneous factual premise and without consideration of material allegations of fraud, bogus documentation, and wrongful utilisation of Cenvat credit could not stand. The revisional authority was required to independently examine the exporter's alleged involvement in a fraudulent rebate arrangement, the manufacturer's alleged use of fictitious invoices, and the scope of revisional power under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The revisional order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the revision application. en-us Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210187 A rebate order based on an erroneous factual premise and without consideration of material allegations of fraud, bogus documentation, and wrongful utilisation of Cenvat credit could not stand. The revisional authority was required to independently examine the exporter's alleged involvement in a fraudulent rebate arrangement, the manufacturer's alleged use of fictitious invoices, and the scope of revisional power under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The revisional order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the revision application. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210187