https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174220 The case involved a dispute regarding the availing of cenvat credit and concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 06/2002-CE, as well as the reversal of cenvat credit by the manufacturer of ceramic glaze tiles. The Revenue contended that the manufacturer wrongly availed exemptions and benefits to evade central excise duty. The Tribunal initially set aside the demand raised by the Commissioner, but during the appeal process, it was revealed that the manufacturer had actually reversed the cenvat credit. As a result, the Tax Appeal was disposed of in line with a previous court judgment, based on the clarified facts of the case. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174220 The case involved a dispute regarding the availing of cenvat credit and concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 06/2002-CE, as well as the reversal of cenvat credit by the manufacturer of ceramic glaze tiles. The Revenue contended that the manufacturer wrongly availed exemptions and benefits to evade central excise duty. The Tribunal initially set aside the demand raised by the Commissioner, but during the appeal process, it was revealed that the manufacturer had actually reversed the cenvat credit. As a result, the Tax Appeal was disposed of in line with a previous court judgment, based on the clarified facts of the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174220