https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203686 Penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, was held unsustainable at this stage because the core question was whether the spectrometer in the factory was the same machine imported under the relevant Bill of Entry. The Tribunal noted that this could be verified only through factory inspection and identification by officers. If the assessee established that the machine present was the imported capital good, the basis for alleging non-receipt or suppression would fall away and penalty would not be justified. The adjudication was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after inspection and hearing. en-us Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203686 Penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, was held unsustainable at this stage because the core question was whether the spectrometer in the factory was the same machine imported under the relevant Bill of Entry. The Tribunal noted that this could be verified only through factory inspection and identification by officers. If the assessee established that the machine present was the imported capital good, the basis for alleging non-receipt or suppression would fall away and penalty would not be justified. The adjudication was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after inspection and hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203686