https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753276 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT Credit provisions. Revenue alleged the appellant sold scrap from capital goods without paying duty under Rule 3(5A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, but failed to produce evidence proving the scrap originated from CENVAT-credited capital goods. The tribunal held that burden of proof lies with revenue to establish contraventions of taxing statutes, not on the appellant to prove exemption. Since revenue couldn't demonstrate the scrap arose from CENVAT-credited capital goods, and lower authorities incorrectly placed burden on appellant, the proceedings were deemed without merit and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 16:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753276 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT Credit provisions. Revenue alleged the appellant sold scrap from capital goods without paying duty under Rule 3(5A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, but failed to produce evidence proving the scrap originated from CENVAT-credited capital goods. The tribunal held that burden of proof lies with revenue to establish contraventions of taxing statutes, not on the appellant to prove exemption. Since revenue couldn't demonstrate the scrap arose from CENVAT-credited capital goods, and lower authorities incorrectly placed burden on appellant, the proceedings were deemed without merit and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753276