https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361054 The appeal was successful as the Judicial Member set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant's timely payment of the disputed amount with interest post-audit objection was deemed sufficient under Section 11A(2) of CEA, negating the need for a show-cause notice in the absence of fraud or suppression. The Member found no evidence of willful misdeclaration and emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and established case law in matters concerning CENVAT credit availment and duty payment obligations under CCR and CEA. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2018 08:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361054 The appeal was successful as the Judicial Member set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant's timely payment of the disputed amount with interest post-audit objection was deemed sufficient under Section 11A(2) of CEA, negating the need for a show-cause notice in the absence of fraud or suppression. The Member found no evidence of willful misdeclaration and emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and established case law in matters concerning CENVAT credit availment and duty payment obligations under CCR and CEA. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361054