https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332472 CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the de novo adjudication order on an incomplete appreciation of evidence or without independent reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority had complied with the remand directions, examined the material in detail, and that the allegations involved fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on fictitious documents. It further accepted that extended limitation and penalty consequences followed from the alleged fraud, and treated statements recorded before customs officers as material evidence. The order setting aside the adjudication was therefore reversed, and the de novo demand, interest and penalty were restored in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2016 12:00:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332472 CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the de novo adjudication order on an incomplete appreciation of evidence or without independent reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority had complied with the remand directions, examined the material in detail, and that the allegations involved fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on fictitious documents. It further accepted that extended limitation and penalty consequences followed from the alleged fraud, and treated statements recorded before customs officers as material evidence. The order setting aside the adjudication was therefore reversed, and the de novo demand, interest and penalty were restored in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332472