Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The appellant was issued penalty u/r 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, alleging that second stage dealers based in Jaipur were issuing cenvatable invoices to the main noticee without delivering goods, which were purchased from first stage dealers and manufactured by non-existent or non-working manufacturers. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded categorical findings that the main noticee had duly received goods and made duty payment. Tribunal held that when the demand for cenvat credit itself is not maintainable, there is no justification to affirm penalty on the appellant. Following the principles enunciated by Division Bench in Drolia Electrosteel case, where department accepted findings of Commissioner (Appeals), there is no justification to uphold penalty imposition on appellant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
