https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377796 The case involved issues regarding the validity of a demand under erstwhile Rule 57(l)(ii) post substitution with CENVAT Rules 2002, alleged violation of natural justice by CESTAT, legality of setting aside recovery of irregular MODVAT credit and penalties, rejection of evidence under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, and penalties imposed under Rule 209A. The Supreme Court held in favor of the Revenue on the validity of the demand post substitution. The breach of natural justice was upheld, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication, rendering other questions academic. Penalties under Rule 209A were subject to reconsideration during fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2019 18:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377796 The case involved issues regarding the validity of a demand under erstwhile Rule 57(l)(ii) post substitution with CENVAT Rules 2002, alleged violation of natural justice by CESTAT, legality of setting aside recovery of irregular MODVAT credit and penalties, rejection of evidence under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, and penalties imposed under Rule 209A. The Supreme Court held in favor of the Revenue on the validity of the demand post substitution. The breach of natural justice was upheld, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication, rendering other questions academic. Penalties under Rule 209A were subject to reconsideration during fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377796