https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239858 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and restored the Assistant Commissioner's order, allowing the Revenue's appeals. The burden of proof regarding the actual receipt of goods lay with the respondent, who failed to provide satisfactory evidence. The Tribunal criticized the reliance on newspaper reports and found the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded the scope of the remand order. Consequently, penalties were confirmed, and the demand for Cenvat Credit along with interest was upheld. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239858 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and restored the Assistant Commissioner's order, allowing the Revenue's appeals. The burden of proof regarding the actual receipt of goods lay with the respondent, who failed to provide satisfactory evidence. The Tribunal criticized the reliance on newspaper reports and found the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded the scope of the remand order. Consequently, penalties were confirmed, and the demand for Cenvat Credit along with interest was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239858