https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341122 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to drop duty demand against the respondent for utilizing Cenvat credit for duty payment. The Revenue's argument that duty should have been paid in cash was dismissed as Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not mandate cash payment. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's claim of intentional duty evasion, finding no wilful suppression of facts or intent to evade duty by the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of proving intention to evade duty in such cases and the criteria for invoking the extended recovery period for duty. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341122 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to drop duty demand against the respondent for utilizing Cenvat credit for duty payment. The Revenue's argument that duty should have been paid in cash was dismissed as Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not mandate cash payment. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's claim of intentional duty evasion, finding no wilful suppression of facts or intent to evade duty by the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of proving intention to evade duty in such cases and the criteria for invoking the extended recovery period for duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341122