https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268359 The Tribunal's acceptance of revenue neutrality was upheld because the Revenue failed to establish diversion of inputs to third parties or any actual revenue loss. Although the units were associate concerns with common management and the record showed that materials moved inter se and were delivered to the concerned factories, the procedure followed did not meet prescribed formalities. That procedural lapse, however, did not displace the core factual finding that no cogent evidence of diversion existed. The Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on revenue neutrality was neither perverse nor legally flawed, and the penalty and duty demand could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268359 The Tribunal's acceptance of revenue neutrality was upheld because the Revenue failed to establish diversion of inputs to third parties or any actual revenue loss. Although the units were associate concerns with common management and the record showed that materials moved inter se and were delivered to the concerned factories, the procedure followed did not meet prescribed formalities. That procedural lapse, however, did not displace the core factual finding that no cogent evidence of diversion existed. The Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on revenue neutrality was neither perverse nor legally flawed, and the penalty and duty demand could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268359