https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389453 The court ruled against the respondent-assessee, upholding that scrapping does not qualify for CENVAT credit under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as it does not align with the specified processes. It was found that the respondent unlawfully availed CENVAT credit by misrepresenting returned goods. Additionally, the penalty imposed on R.K. Gupta under Rule 26 was deemed lawful due to his involvement in wrongful credit availment. The court set aside the CESTAT's judgment, affirming the Commissioner's order and allowing both appeals in favor of the Revenue. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389453 The court ruled against the respondent-assessee, upholding that scrapping does not qualify for CENVAT credit under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as it does not align with the specified processes. It was found that the respondent unlawfully availed CENVAT credit by misrepresenting returned goods. Additionally, the penalty imposed on R.K. Gupta under Rule 26 was deemed lawful due to his involvement in wrongful credit availment. The court set aside the CESTAT's judgment, affirming the Commissioner's order and allowing both appeals in favor of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389453