https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339125 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the court found that the demand for interest and penalty beyond five years from the show-cause notice was not sustainable under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, except for two entries. The judge emphasized the necessity of a sustainable reversal of CENVAT credit before imposing interest and penalty. The court noted the absence of an intent to evade duty for the two credits availed within five years and concluded that the adjudicating authority's decision was correct. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside, leading to the appeal being allowed on 24.01.2017. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:41:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339125 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the court found that the demand for interest and penalty beyond five years from the show-cause notice was not sustainable under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, except for two entries. The judge emphasized the necessity of a sustainable reversal of CENVAT credit before imposing interest and penalty. The court noted the absence of an intent to evade duty for the two credits availed within five years and concluded that the adjudicating authority's decision was correct. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside, leading to the appeal being allowed on 24.01.2017. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339125