https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356310 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices described the inputs differently when the evidence showed receipt and use of the material in the factory as damaged aluminium profiles or scrap capable of being melted and used in manufacture. On those facts, the credit disallowance was unsustainable and was set aside. Penalties under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be imposed for alleged conduct occurring between March 2006 and October 2006, because that provision was treated as applicable only from 1 March 2007. The penalty orders were therefore also set aside. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2018 07:37:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356310 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices described the inputs differently when the evidence showed receipt and use of the material in the factory as damaged aluminium profiles or scrap capable of being melted and used in manufacture. On those facts, the credit disallowance was unsustainable and was set aside. Penalties under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be imposed for alleged conduct occurring between March 2006 and October 2006, because that provision was treated as applicable only from 1 March 2007. The penalty orders were therefore also set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356310