https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421264 The appeal was filed against a demand of excise duty for the Financial Year 2011-12, alleging incorrect availment of Cenvat credit for returned goods. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing, demonstrated proper accounting and verification of returned goods at the Barauni unit. Despite procedural lapses, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the demand order. The decision emphasized the significance of accurate verification and documentation in claiming Cenvat credit, ensuring substantive benefits are not denied due to procedural issues. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2023 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421264 The appeal was filed against a demand of excise duty for the Financial Year 2011-12, alleging incorrect availment of Cenvat credit for returned goods. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing, demonstrated proper accounting and verification of returned goods at the Barauni unit. Despite procedural lapses, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the demand order. The decision emphasized the significance of accurate verification and documentation in claiming Cenvat credit, ensuring substantive benefits are not denied due to procedural issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421264