https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336205 Excise demand under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was quashed because the adjudicating authority failed to address the taxpayer's central contention that the amended Rule 7 was clarificatory or, alternatively, whether it applied only prospectively. The Bombay HC held that the existing order could not sustain the demand when this core issue had been raised but left unanswered. It did not rule on the amendment's true character and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping the show cause notice alive. en-us Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336205 Excise demand under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was quashed because the adjudicating authority failed to address the taxpayer's central contention that the amended Rule 7 was clarificatory or, alternatively, whether it applied only prospectively. The Bombay HC held that the existing order could not sustain the demand when this core issue had been raised but left unanswered. It did not rule on the amendment's true character and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping the show cause notice alive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336205