https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116038 Penalty reduction under Rule 173Q was held unjustified where Modvat credit had been availed on goods not actually received. The respondents had taken credit on 1,000 cots that were not received, and this fraudulent availment justified a stricter penalty rather than a nominal one. The order reducing the penalty was found erroneous because the minimum penalty prescribed under Rule 173Q was Rs. 5,000, and the facts warranted penal action at the higher level. The penalty of Rs. 25,000 was restored in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:44:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116038 Penalty reduction under Rule 173Q was held unjustified where Modvat credit had been availed on goods not actually received. The respondents had taken credit on 1,000 cots that were not received, and this fraudulent availment justified a stricter penalty rather than a nominal one. The order reducing the penalty was found erroneous because the minimum penalty prescribed under Rule 173Q was Rs. 5,000, and the facts warranted penal action at the higher level. The penalty of Rs. 25,000 was restored in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116038