https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233418 The Tribunal found that despite procedural lapses in registration amendments, all manufacturing activities and records were maintained at Appellant No.1's premises. The inputs received in Appellant No.2's name were used for manufacturing at Appellant No.1, with proper Central Excise duties discharged. Cenvat credit for these inputs was deemed admissible to Appellant No.1, eliminating further duty liability. The penalties imposed for procedural lapses and non-intentional duty evasion were considered unjustified, leading to the penalties being set aside for both appellants and the Managing Director. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2013 11:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233418 The Tribunal found that despite procedural lapses in registration amendments, all manufacturing activities and records were maintained at Appellant No.1's premises. The inputs received in Appellant No.2's name were used for manufacturing at Appellant No.1, with proper Central Excise duties discharged. Cenvat credit for these inputs was deemed admissible to Appellant No.1, eliminating further duty liability. The penalties imposed for procedural lapses and non-intentional duty evasion were considered unjustified, leading to the penalties being set aside for both appellants and the Managing Director. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233418