https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123473 Penalty was unwarranted where Cenvat credit on imported goods was substantively admissible, as the duty element had been paid, the goods were received in the factory and used in manufacture, and the only defect was procedural non-production of the prescribed triplicate bill of entry copy. In the absence of mens rea and where the credit had already been paid before appeal, denial of credit could not support penal action. The stated principle is that penalty cannot rest on a mere procedural irregularity when substantive entitlement is established and no deliberate evasion is shown. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:22:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123473 Penalty was unwarranted where Cenvat credit on imported goods was substantively admissible, as the duty element had been paid, the goods were received in the factory and used in manufacture, and the only defect was procedural non-production of the prescribed triplicate bill of entry copy. In the absence of mens rea and where the credit had already been paid before appeal, denial of credit could not support penal action. The stated principle is that penalty cannot rest on a mere procedural irregularity when substantive entitlement is established and no deliberate evasion is shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123473