https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218470 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable because the record did not show fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or any deliberate conduct with intent to evade duty. The excess Cenvat credit had been reversed when pointed out and interest was paid, which weakened any inference of evasion. Penalty was also questioned under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 because that provision had already been omitted with effect from 1.3.2003. The penalty demand was therefore found unsustainable on merits, although refund of penalty already paid was not granted. en-us Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218470 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable because the record did not show fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or any deliberate conduct with intent to evade duty. The excess Cenvat credit had been reversed when pointed out and interest was paid, which weakened any inference of evasion. Penalty was also questioned under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 because that provision had already been omitted with effect from 1.3.2003. The penalty demand was therefore found unsustainable on merits, although refund of penalty already paid was not granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218470