https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384681 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It ruled that discrepancies in stock statements alone cannot substantiate allegations of clandestine removal without corroborative evidence. Additionally, the denial of cenvat credit due to non-payment for inputs was deemed unjustified, as Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allows credit upon receipt of inputs. Penalties imposed were revoked, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence and procedural fairness in tax disputes. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384681 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It ruled that discrepancies in stock statements alone cannot substantiate allegations of clandestine removal without corroborative evidence. Additionally, the denial of cenvat credit due to non-payment for inputs was deemed unjustified, as Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allows credit upon receipt of inputs. Penalties imposed were revoked, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence and procedural fairness in tax disputes. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384681