https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375124 The Tribunal upheld the demand for CENVAT credit reversal on capital goods availed by the appellant, emphasizing that credit could be taken based on utilization rather than just the consignee's name. It ruled that interest demands beyond one year were time-barred but confirmed demands within one year. The penalty under Rule 15(1) was set aside as there was no evidence of wrongful credit usage. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order, setting aside interest demands beyond one year, confirming interest within one year, and setting aside the penalty under Rule 15(1), disposing of the appeal accordingly. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:05:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375124 The Tribunal upheld the demand for CENVAT credit reversal on capital goods availed by the appellant, emphasizing that credit could be taken based on utilization rather than just the consignee's name. It ruled that interest demands beyond one year were time-barred but confirmed demands within one year. The penalty under Rule 15(1) was set aside as there was no evidence of wrongful credit usage. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order, setting aside interest demands beyond one year, confirming interest within one year, and setting aside the penalty under Rule 15(1), disposing of the appeal accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375124