https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77857 Penalty proceedings grounded in Rule 15 could not be expanded in appeal by invoking Rule 6(b)(ii) for the first time, because the show cause notice and adjudication had proceeded only on Rule 15 concerning wrong availment or utilisation of Cenvat credit. Rule 6(b)(ii), which addresses issuance of excise invoices to enable an ineligible benefit, operated in a different field, and the appellate authority could not introduce that fresh basis to the appellant's prejudice. The appellant therefore established a prima facie case for unconditional stay, and the stay petition was allowed. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77857 Penalty proceedings grounded in Rule 15 could not be expanded in appeal by invoking Rule 6(b)(ii) for the first time, because the show cause notice and adjudication had proceeded only on Rule 15 concerning wrong availment or utilisation of Cenvat credit. Rule 6(b)(ii), which addresses issuance of excise invoices to enable an ineligible benefit, operated in a different field, and the appellate authority could not introduce that fresh basis to the appellant's prejudice. The appellant therefore established a prima facie case for unconditional stay, and the stay petition was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77857