https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239776 The judgment in the case involved M/s. Fine Cast Industries, manufacturers of cast iron and SG iron castings, and M/s. Santhosh Kumar Steels, a supplier of iron and steel scrap. The court confirmed the demand of duty, interest, and penalties on both parties. The advocate for the scrap supplier argued against penalties based on lack of evidence, but the court upheld the penalties citing Rule 25 applicability. The judgment emphasized discrepancies in CENVAT credit availing and the necessity of proper invoices for dealers. Ultimately, the court rejected the appeals and upheld the impugned orders, justifying penalties for excise duty evasion. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239776 The judgment in the case involved M/s. Fine Cast Industries, manufacturers of cast iron and SG iron castings, and M/s. Santhosh Kumar Steels, a supplier of iron and steel scrap. The court confirmed the demand of duty, interest, and penalties on both parties. The advocate for the scrap supplier argued against penalties based on lack of evidence, but the court upheld the penalties citing Rule 25 applicability. The judgment emphasized discrepancies in CENVAT credit availing and the necessity of proper invoices for dealers. Ultimately, the court rejected the appeals and upheld the impugned orders, justifying penalties for excise duty evasion. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239776