https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245969 Liability for wrongly availed Cenvat credit could not be fastened on a registered dealer under Rule 12, because the rule was treated as operating against the manufacturer rather than the dealer. The Tribunal also held that penalty was unjustified where there was no evidence of mala fide conduct, knowledge of the irregular passing of credit, or conscious participation in the underlying default. On those grounds, the demand and penalty against the dealer were set aside, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:59:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245969 Liability for wrongly availed Cenvat credit could not be fastened on a registered dealer under Rule 12, because the rule was treated as operating against the manufacturer rather than the dealer. The Tribunal also held that penalty was unjustified where there was no evidence of mala fide conduct, knowledge of the irregular passing of credit, or conscious participation in the underlying default. On those grounds, the demand and penalty against the dealer were set aside, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245969