https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266416 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, due to the lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty payment. However, the denial of CENVAT credit and interest was upheld as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as scientific literature or certificates, to support the processing loss claim of 10% in the yield of Potash Pallets. The decision was based on the lack of substantiation for the processing loss claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266416 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, due to the lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty payment. However, the denial of CENVAT credit and interest was upheld as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as scientific literature or certificates, to support the processing loss claim of 10% in the yield of Potash Pallets. The decision was based on the lack of substantiation for the processing loss claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266416