https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351891 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue challenging the setting aside of the order-in-original for differential duty and denial of credit under Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal clarified that duty under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules is for goods received, not goods sold, and found no evidence of evasion. Compliance with excise rules was emphasized, leading to the rejection of the appeal and affirming the decision to set aside the demand for disputed duty. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351891 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue challenging the setting aside of the order-in-original for differential duty and denial of credit under Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal clarified that duty under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules is for goods received, not goods sold, and found no evidence of evasion. Compliance with excise rules was emphasized, leading to the rejection of the appeal and affirming the decision to set aside the demand for disputed duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351891