https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387657 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand for duty should be neutralized against available cenvat credit, which can be proven with documentary evidence. The tribunal allowed the cenvat credit for duty paid on inputs and found the 6-month limitation under Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules to be inapplicable. The penalty imposed was set aside due to the absence of mala fide on the appellant's part. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of duty considering cenvat credit and service tax payments during the relevant period. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:56:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387657 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand for duty should be neutralized against available cenvat credit, which can be proven with documentary evidence. The tribunal allowed the cenvat credit for duty paid on inputs and found the 6-month limitation under Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules to be inapplicable. The penalty imposed was set aside due to the absence of mala fide on the appellant's part. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of duty considering cenvat credit and service tax payments during the relevant period. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387657