https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392162 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the demand for irregular Cenvat credit, double Cenvat credit, and excess Cenvat credit for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal held that the appellant had already followed the required reversal procedure under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004, and should not be asked to reverse more than the actual Cenvat credit availed. Additionally, the Tribunal found that penalty imposition was unwarranted as the disputed amount was paid before the show cause notice and with interest, without evidence of fraud or willful misstatement by the appellant. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:37:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392162 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the demand for irregular Cenvat credit, double Cenvat credit, and excess Cenvat credit for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal held that the appellant had already followed the required reversal procedure under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004, and should not be asked to reverse more than the actual Cenvat credit availed. Additionally, the Tribunal found that penalty imposition was unwarranted as the disputed amount was paid before the show cause notice and with interest, without evidence of fraud or willful misstatement by the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392162