https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261266 The appellant, engaged in supplying goods to defense, faced a duty payment demand due to alleged duty exemption misinterpretation. The Commissioner denied Cenvat credit, citing improper account maintenance. The appellant, citing confusion and supporting documents, claimed entitlement to credit. The Tribunal accepted the demand within the limitation but requested re-quantification. Disputes over certification were resolved in favor of the appellant due to higher-ranking signatories. The appellant's bona fide belief and lack of malafide intent were acknowledged, justifying the limitation period. The case was remanded for reconsideration within the limitation, with penalties set aside. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2015 06:43:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261266 The appellant, engaged in supplying goods to defense, faced a duty payment demand due to alleged duty exemption misinterpretation. The Commissioner denied Cenvat credit, citing improper account maintenance. The appellant, citing confusion and supporting documents, claimed entitlement to credit. The Tribunal accepted the demand within the limitation but requested re-quantification. Disputes over certification were resolved in favor of the appellant due to higher-ranking signatories. The appellant's bona fide belief and lack of malafide intent were acknowledged, justifying the limitation period. The case was remanded for reconsideration within the limitation, with penalties set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261266