https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770299 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant, operating as an LTU, had discharged central excise duty and education cess on clearance of inputs to another unit but failed to discharge appropriate SAD. The Commissioner erroneously found that appellant became LTU only from 01.04.2010, which was contrary to facts. The Tribunal held that recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 prior to 01.03.2013 was bad in law, citing precedents. The demand for credit reversal on SAD was unsustainable due to lack of mechanism for recovery under the relevant rules. en-us Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:41:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770299 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant, operating as an LTU, had discharged central excise duty and education cess on clearance of inputs to another unit but failed to discharge appropriate SAD. The Commissioner erroneously found that appellant became LTU only from 01.04.2010, which was contrary to facts. The Tribunal held that recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 prior to 01.03.2013 was bad in law, citing precedents. The demand for credit reversal on SAD was unsustainable due to lack of mechanism for recovery under the relevant rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770299