https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350937 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner(Appeals) decision. The Tribunal found that no reversal of credit was necessary under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR as the goods were sent for testing and returned within 180 days. It was determined that the denial of CENVAT credit was based on procedural irregularities and that the case laws cited by the appellant supported their position, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:02:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350937 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner(Appeals) decision. The Tribunal found that no reversal of credit was necessary under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR as the goods were sent for testing and returned within 180 days. It was determined that the denial of CENVAT credit was based on procedural irregularities and that the case laws cited by the appellant supported their position, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350937