As per case facts, the Revenue appealed against a CESTAT Order that allowed M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) to avail CENVAT credit. BALCO had used supplementary invoices from its ... supplier, SECL, who had paid differential excise duty confirmed with an extended limitation period and penalty under Section 11AC for alleged undervaluation and suppression of facts. The Department contended that BALCO's CENVAT credit was barred under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to SECL's conduct. The Commissioner disallowed the credit, but CESTAT allowed it, finding no fraud by BALCO. The Revenue appealed, arguing CESTAT overlooked the statutory bar related to the supplier's actions and failed to address the Commissioner's detailed findings. The question arose whether CESTAT was justified in allowing CENVAT credit based on a finding perverse to the record. Finally, the High Court found CESTAT's order to be unreasoned and not in consonance with law, as it failed to meticulously examine the case merits and rebut the Commissioner's findings. The matter was remanded back to CESTAT for fresh adjudication on merits, without the High Court expressing any opinion on the case merits.