https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219452 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the department. The appellant was found not liable under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the department failed to prove the use of Cenvat credit for inputs in the production of bagasse. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of establishing such usage to invoke Rule 6 and highlighted the importance of evidence and proper application of rules in excise duty cases for fairness and compliance. en-us Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219452 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the department. The appellant was found not liable under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the department failed to prove the use of Cenvat credit for inputs in the production of bagasse. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of establishing such usage to invoke Rule 6 and highlighted the importance of evidence and proper application of rules in excise duty cases for fairness and compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219452