https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185937 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmation of cenvat demand on glass bottles. It held that during the relevant period in 2005 and 2006, there were no provisions requiring the reversal of cenvat credit on destroyed inputs. As the rule mandating such reversal came into effect later in 2007 and was not retrospective, the appellant was not obligated to reverse the cenvat credit. The Tribunal relied on a judgment by the Allahabad High Court to support this interpretation, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). en-us Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185937 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmation of cenvat demand on glass bottles. It held that during the relevant period in 2005 and 2006, there were no provisions requiring the reversal of cenvat credit on destroyed inputs. As the rule mandating such reversal came into effect later in 2007 and was not retrospective, the appellant was not obligated to reverse the cenvat credit. The Tribunal relied on a judgment by the Allahabad High Court to support this interpretation, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185937