https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239809 Denial of deemed Modvat credit and penalties based on suppression require clear proof of the assessee's collusion or knowledge of the merchant manufacturers' misdeclaration; mere recovery of signed blank forms is insufficient. On the first appellant's facts, the record did not clearly establish such knowledge, so the extended-period basis for credit denial and penalties was not sustained, though the admitted duty demand remained confirmed. By contrast, the second appellant's penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the records showed under-declaration, the wastage explanation was unproven, and the investigation conduct supported awareness of misdeclaration. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239809 Denial of deemed Modvat credit and penalties based on suppression require clear proof of the assessee's collusion or knowledge of the merchant manufacturers' misdeclaration; mere recovery of signed blank forms is insufficient. On the first appellant's facts, the record did not clearly establish such knowledge, so the extended-period basis for credit denial and penalties was not sustained, though the admitted duty demand remained confirmed. By contrast, the second appellant's penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the records showed under-declaration, the wastage explanation was unproven, and the investigation conduct supported awareness of misdeclaration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239809