https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95365 Taking excess Modvat credit not permitted under the notification attracted penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but the lapse was treated as limited where the credit was never utilised and was reversed before the show-cause notice. The conduct was viewed as a commercial claim to entitlement rather than a wilful or contumacious act, so the penalty was considered maintainable but warranted substantial reduction. Rule 226 was also noted as indicating lower statutory exposure on these facts, and the penalty was confined to a nominal amount. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:10:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95365 Taking excess Modvat credit not permitted under the notification attracted penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but the lapse was treated as limited where the credit was never utilised and was reversed before the show-cause notice. The conduct was viewed as a commercial claim to entitlement rather than a wilful or contumacious act, so the penalty was considered maintainable but warranted substantial reduction. Rule 226 was also noted as indicating lower statutory exposure on these facts, and the penalty was confined to a nominal amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95365