https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355126 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the main appellant, stating they were entitled to Cenvat Credit as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The duty payment was considered a reversal of credit. The co-appellant was also entitled to credit under Rule 16 of the CCR, 2004 but was penalized Rs. 5000 for misrepresentation. The appeals were dismissed, with no duty demand or penalty imposed on the main appellant, while the penalty on the co-appellant for misrepresentation was upheld. en-us Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355126 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the main appellant, stating they were entitled to Cenvat Credit as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The duty payment was considered a reversal of credit. The co-appellant was also entitled to credit under Rule 16 of the CCR, 2004 but was penalized Rs. 5000 for misrepresentation. The appeals were dismissed, with no duty demand or penalty imposed on the main appellant, while the penalty on the co-appellant for misrepresentation was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355126