https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152680 Penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable where the factory was shifted within the same Central Excise Range, the jurisdictional officer had been informed in writing in advance, and the registration number remained unchanged. Only the address entry required correction, and the procedural requirements under Rule 9 were not breached. The absence of any irregular or fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit further negatived any allegation of evasion. Rule 25(1) was found inapplicable because the assessee did not satisfy clauses (a), (b) or (c), and clause (d) also did not apply in the absence of intent to evade duty. The penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152680 Penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable where the factory was shifted within the same Central Excise Range, the jurisdictional officer had been informed in writing in advance, and the registration number remained unchanged. Only the address entry required correction, and the procedural requirements under Rule 9 were not breached. The absence of any irregular or fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit further negatived any allegation of evasion. Rule 25(1) was found inapplicable because the assessee did not satisfy clauses (a), (b) or (c), and clause (d) also did not apply in the absence of intent to evade duty. The penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152680