https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243753 The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the penalty confirmed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the respondent. The judge found that the show-cause notice lacked clarity and consistency in accusing the respondent of intentionally and wrongly taking the credit, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the respondent due to the contradictory terms used. The importance of clear and consistent allegations in show-cause notices for accurately determining liability was emphasized in the judgment. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:52:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243753 The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the penalty confirmed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the respondent. The judge found that the show-cause notice lacked clarity and consistency in accusing the respondent of intentionally and wrongly taking the credit, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the respondent due to the contradictory terms used. The importance of clear and consistent allegations in show-cause notices for accurately determining liability was emphasized in the judgment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243753