https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302600 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for excise duty for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Tribunal found discrepancies in consumption figures between stock records and returns, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence for excess procurement or clandestine removal of goods. It also rejected allegations of excess Cenvat credit, citing proper accounting for inter-unit transfers. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified due to procedural delays. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence and proper investigation, ultimately allowing the appeal and relieving the appellant from recovery of Cenvat credit, penalty, and interest. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2022 07:39:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302600 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for excise duty for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Tribunal found discrepancies in consumption figures between stock records and returns, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence for excess procurement or clandestine removal of goods. It also rejected allegations of excess Cenvat credit, citing proper accounting for inter-unit transfers. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified due to procedural delays. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence and proper investigation, ultimately allowing the appeal and relieving the appellant from recovery of Cenvat credit, penalty, and interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302600