https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779270 CESTAT (Allahabad) held that ER-1 returns satisfy the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and may constitute a prescribed document for availing CENVAT credit; therefore most allegations against the appellant failed. The tribunal distinguished BDH Industries as dealing with double payment. Recovery was limited to the excess credit of Rs. 2,35,184 and the penalty under Rule 15 read with s.11AC was limited to Rs. 23,518. Appeal allowed in part. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779270 CESTAT (Allahabad) held that ER-1 returns satisfy the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and may constitute a prescribed document for availing CENVAT credit; therefore most allegations against the appellant failed. The tribunal distinguished BDH Industries as dealing with double payment. Recovery was limited to the excess credit of Rs. 2,35,184 and the penalty under Rule 15 read with s.11AC was limited to Rs. 23,518. Appeal allowed in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779270