https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355044 The Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority due to procedural unfairness. The appellant's cenvat credit denial was based on lack of documentary evidence, but the adjudication lacked procedural fairness as no specific notice was issued on the admissibility issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address this flaw, rendering their order illegal. The Member emphasized the importance of natural justice, instructing a fresh decision with a personal hearing for the appellant to explain the input service's admissibility. The decision aimed to correct overlapping cenvat credit demands, ensuring fairness in the adjudication process. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:44:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355044 The Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority due to procedural unfairness. The appellant's cenvat credit denial was based on lack of documentary evidence, but the adjudication lacked procedural fairness as no specific notice was issued on the admissibility issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address this flaw, rendering their order illegal. The Member emphasized the importance of natural justice, instructing a fresh decision with a personal hearing for the appellant to explain the input service's admissibility. The decision aimed to correct overlapping cenvat credit demands, ensuring fairness in the adjudication process. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355044