Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding interest and imposing penalty. It held that interest under s.11AA of the Central Excise Act r/w r.14 of the 2004 Credit Rules was unsustainable since the SCN neither specified when duty became due nor when the CENVAT credit was reversed, nor alleged any violation of r.6 of the 2004 Credit Rules. As the appellant had already reversed CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, this reversal was treated as non-availment of credit, eliminating any duty liability under s.11A. Consequently, preconditions for penalty under r.15(1) of the 2004 Credit Rules were not met, and the penalty, including on the basis of alleged suppression, was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.