https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365320 Cenvat credit on duplex paper could not be denied merely on a period-wise mismatch between receipt and consumption where payments were made through banking channels, there was no evidence of fund flow-back, and untested statements lacked corroboration and cross-examination; the credit demand and related penalty were set aside. The separate demand based on dispatch advices and parallel invoices was remanded for fresh adjudication because the dispute on prior contest required reconsideration after hearing the assessee. Penalty on the director under Rule 26 was also set aside because no confiscation order or material showing mala fide conduct or active involvement was established. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:08:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365320 Cenvat credit on duplex paper could not be denied merely on a period-wise mismatch between receipt and consumption where payments were made through banking channels, there was no evidence of fund flow-back, and untested statements lacked corroboration and cross-examination; the credit demand and related penalty were set aside. The separate demand based on dispatch advices and parallel invoices was remanded for fresh adjudication because the dispute on prior contest required reconsideration after hearing the assessee. Penalty on the director under Rule 26 was also set aside because no confiscation order or material showing mala fide conduct or active involvement was established. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365320