https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427179 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction because the dispute concerned the June 2017 closing Cenvat credit balance reflected in the excise return, not a matter arising purely under the CGST regime. It further held that transitional credit was allowable for closing Cenvat credit carried forward from the pre-GST period, and the assessee's corrected return and explanation of clerical error were not rebutted by departmental evidence. In the absence of proof that the lower revised balance was correct, denial of transitional credit was unsustainable and the demand for reversal could not survive. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2022 07:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427179 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction because the dispute concerned the June 2017 closing Cenvat credit balance reflected in the excise return, not a matter arising purely under the CGST regime. It further held that transitional credit was allowable for closing Cenvat credit carried forward from the pre-GST period, and the assessee's corrected return and explanation of clerical error were not rebutted by departmental evidence. In the absence of proof that the lower revised balance was correct, denial of transitional credit was unsustainable and the demand for reversal could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427179