TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be imposed in the absence of confirmation of duty under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The appellants were visited with penalty on the premise that Cenvat credit had been availed on allegedly fake invoices. The record did not satisfactorily establish that the suppliers were fake or non-existent, and the show cause notice did not disclose the names of the alleged suppliers. More importantly, no duty demand stood confirmed against the appellants under Section 11A(2). Since Section 11AC is attracted only when duty is confirmed under Section 11A(2), the penal provision could not be invoked on the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable and was rightly set aside, in favour of the assessees.
TaxTMI 
