https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377025 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the appellant had already reversed a significant portion of the cenvat credit, satisfying a substantial part of the demands raised by the Department. The Tribunal emphasized the provisions of Rule 7 and Rule 7A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, highlighting the permissibility of credit reversals by Input Service Distributors for inadmissible credits. It was concluded that the confirmation of demands against the appellant was not justified, especially considering the credit had already been reversed by the ISD. The Tribunal also determined that the demands for interest and penalties were unwarranted, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:45:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377025 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the appellant had already reversed a significant portion of the cenvat credit, satisfying a substantial part of the demands raised by the Department. The Tribunal emphasized the provisions of Rule 7 and Rule 7A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, highlighting the permissibility of credit reversals by Input Service Distributors for inadmissible credits. It was concluded that the confirmation of demands against the appellant was not justified, especially considering the credit had already been reversed by the ISD. The Tribunal also determined that the demands for interest and penalties were unwarranted, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377025