https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330509 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against a demand of duty under Cenvat Credit Rules, rejecting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The appellant successfully argued against the allegation of availing Cenvat credit at the time of purchase by providing evidence and emphasizing the lack of concrete proof. The Tribunal found Rule 3(5A) and Rule 3(5) inapplicable due to the appellant's denial of availing credit, supported by purchase documents. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was deemed not invokable as no evidence of suppression or misconduct was found, granting the appellant consequential benefits. en-us Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330509 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against a demand of duty under Cenvat Credit Rules, rejecting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The appellant successfully argued against the allegation of availing Cenvat credit at the time of purchase by providing evidence and emphasizing the lack of concrete proof. The Tribunal found Rule 3(5A) and Rule 3(5) inapplicable due to the appellant's denial of availing credit, supported by purchase documents. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was deemed not invokable as no evidence of suppression or misconduct was found, granting the appellant consequential benefits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330509