https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424455 The appellant's appeal before CESTAT regarding the quantification of duty on transfer of inputs under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules was upheld in their favor. The dispute arose from the use of the Last In First Out (LIFO) method by the department to calculate cenvat, alleging excess credit taken by the appellant. Additionally, in Appeal No. E/12951/2019, the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Chennai Unit was challenged and ultimately set aside by the Member (Judicial) based on established legal precedents supporting the appellant's position on cenvat credit availability. en-us Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:33:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424455 The appellant's appeal before CESTAT regarding the quantification of duty on transfer of inputs under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules was upheld in their favor. The dispute arose from the use of the Last In First Out (LIFO) method by the department to calculate cenvat, alleging excess credit taken by the appellant. Additionally, in Appeal No. E/12951/2019, the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Chennai Unit was challenged and ultimately set aside by the Member (Judicial) based on established legal precedents supporting the appellant's position on cenvat credit availability. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424455