https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759348 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal against Cenvat Credit refund demand based on alleged fake invoices. The Tribunal found the SCN was based on assumptions without proper investigation of consigners, while appellant provided substantial evidence including toll receipts and taxation authority reports that were ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. The demand was barred by limitation as appellant regularly filed ER-2 returns without concealing facts. Penalties on partner and manager under Rule 26 were held incorrect in law as no confiscatable goods were involved. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:45:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759348 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal against Cenvat Credit refund demand based on alleged fake invoices. The Tribunal found the SCN was based on assumptions without proper investigation of consigners, while appellant provided substantial evidence including toll receipts and taxation authority reports that were ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. The demand was barred by limitation as appellant regularly filed ER-2 returns without concealing facts. Penalties on partner and manager under Rule 26 were held incorrect in law as no confiscatable goods were involved. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759348