https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246470 Deemed credit availed under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be carried forward after that notification was rescinded, because credit taken under the earlier notification did not survive its withdrawal and the appellant was not covered by the later notification while operating under the compounded levy scheme. The credit demand was therefore upheld. On penalty, the dispute involved interpretation of law and no mala fide conduct was found, so penal consequences were not justified. The penalty was set aside, resulting in partial relief to the appellant. en-us Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:23:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246470 Deemed credit availed under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be carried forward after that notification was rescinded, because credit taken under the earlier notification did not survive its withdrawal and the appellant was not covered by the later notification while operating under the compounded levy scheme. The credit demand was therefore upheld. On penalty, the dispute involved interpretation of law and no mala fide conduct was found, so penal consequences were not justified. The penalty was set aside, resulting in partial relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246470