https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218505 The judgment in this case involved allegations of fraudulent Cenvat credit availed by the Respondents based on invoices without actual supply of materials. The Commissioner (Appeal) had initially set aside the demand, but the Revenue successfully appealed this decision. The court found that the Respondents failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims, leading to the restoration of the duty demand. The Respondent was given the option to reduce the penalty by paying 25% of the amount within 30 days. Ultimately, the appeal favored the Revenue due to established economic offenses and lack of concrete evidence supporting the Respondent's position. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218505 The judgment in this case involved allegations of fraudulent Cenvat credit availed by the Respondents based on invoices without actual supply of materials. The Commissioner (Appeal) had initially set aside the demand, but the Revenue successfully appealed this decision. The court found that the Respondents failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims, leading to the restoration of the duty demand. The Respondent was given the option to reduce the penalty by paying 25% of the amount within 30 days. Ultimately, the appeal favored the Revenue due to established economic offenses and lack of concrete evidence supporting the Respondent's position. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218505