https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387196 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demands against them were not sustainable. It was determined that the amendment to Rule 16, including Zarda Scented Tobacco for CENVAT Credit, should be applied retrospectively. The tribunal deemed the double demand for CENVAT Credit and Central Excise Duty as illegal and found no grounds for imposing a penalty, as the appellant had acted in good faith and disclosed all relevant information. As a result, the tribunal set aside the challenged orders, allowing all appeals with consequential reliefs. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387196 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demands against them were not sustainable. It was determined that the amendment to Rule 16, including Zarda Scented Tobacco for CENVAT Credit, should be applied retrospectively. The tribunal deemed the double demand for CENVAT Credit and Central Excise Duty as illegal and found no grounds for imposing a penalty, as the appellant had acted in good faith and disclosed all relevant information. As a result, the tribunal set aside the challenged orders, allowing all appeals with consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387196