https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215974 CENVAT credit on returned goods depends on proof that the goods were actually re-entered and that credit was permissible under Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. On the facts, the Tribunal treated the consignee representative's statement, transporter evidence, absence of credit notes reaching the consignee, and unexplained delay in re-entry as showing that the alleged return of goods was not established. The High Court treated these as concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, held that there was no case of no evidence or irrelevant material, and found no substantial question of law for interference; the denial of credit, interest, and equivalent penalty was upheld. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215974 CENVAT credit on returned goods depends on proof that the goods were actually re-entered and that credit was permissible under Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. On the facts, the Tribunal treated the consignee representative's statement, transporter evidence, absence of credit notes reaching the consignee, and unexplained delay in re-entry as showing that the alleged return of goods was not established. The High Court treated these as concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, held that there was no case of no evidence or irrelevant material, and found no substantial question of law for interference; the denial of credit, interest, and equivalent penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215974