https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221809 At the stay stage, utilisation of CENVAT credit for payment of duty on goods found prima facie not to have been manufactured was treated as a reversal of that credit, so further pre-deposit was waived for the main appellant, subject to a deposit of penalty. The order reasoned that insisting on another deposit would amount to double recovery where no duty liability was shown on the alleged clearances. For the connected appellant, the amount already deposited was treated as full compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F, and no further deposit of penalty was directed. A separate concurring view disagreed with equating fraudulent invoice-based credit use with reversal and noted possible section 11D implications. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221809 At the stay stage, utilisation of CENVAT credit for payment of duty on goods found prima facie not to have been manufactured was treated as a reversal of that credit, so further pre-deposit was waived for the main appellant, subject to a deposit of penalty. The order reasoned that insisting on another deposit would amount to double recovery where no duty liability was shown on the alleged clearances. For the connected appellant, the amount already deposited was treated as full compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F, and no further deposit of penalty was directed. A separate concurring view disagreed with equating fraudulent invoice-based credit use with reversal and noted possible section 11D implications. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221809