TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 read with the CENVAT Credit Rules was sustainable where the dispute arose from non-compliance with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in relation to common inputs and input services.
Analysis: The demand and interest had already been paid and the controversy had reached the third round of litigation. The dispute was essentially one of interpretation of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The material on record did not establish wilful suppression, fraud, or misstatement of facts so as to justify the penal consequence. The cited decisions on similar reversals of credit and procedural lapse were treated as applicable to the case.
Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not sustainable and was set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
