https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104551 For exempted goods, Modvat credit had to be reversed at the percentage prescribed under Rule 57CC, and the admitted applicability of that provision justified the differential duty demand. The appellants' claim of ignorance and reliance on reversals under Rule 57C did not displace the statutory reversal requirement, so the demand was sustained. Personal penalty, however, was not justified where returns had been regularly filed, mala fide conduct was absent, and the appellants had not been told to reverse credit at the higher rate; the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:16:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104551 For exempted goods, Modvat credit had to be reversed at the percentage prescribed under Rule 57CC, and the admitted applicability of that provision justified the differential duty demand. The appellants' claim of ignorance and reliance on reversals under Rule 57C did not displace the statutory reversal requirement, so the demand was sustained. Personal penalty, however, was not justified where returns had been regularly filed, mala fide conduct was absent, and the appellants had not been told to reverse credit at the higher rate; the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104551