https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355384 The case involved a dispute over Cenvat credit due to rejected inputs, with the appellant challenging a demand of Rs. 14,01,151 confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued against the sustainability of the demand on debit notes, highlighting discrepancies in demand amounts and questioning the nexus between receipt, rejection, and disposal of goods. The Revenue representative supported the demand based on debit notes, but the Member (Judicial) remanded the case for a detailed examination of the appellant's records, instructing a thorough review of all relevant documentation, including time-barred demands and cum duty benefit considerations. Ultimately, the appeal was remanded for further examination. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:33:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355384 The case involved a dispute over Cenvat credit due to rejected inputs, with the appellant challenging a demand of Rs. 14,01,151 confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued against the sustainability of the demand on debit notes, highlighting discrepancies in demand amounts and questioning the nexus between receipt, rejection, and disposal of goods. The Revenue representative supported the demand based on debit notes, but the Member (Judicial) remanded the case for a detailed examination of the appellant's records, instructing a thorough review of all relevant documentation, including time-barred demands and cum duty benefit considerations. Ultimately, the appeal was remanded for further examination. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355384