https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248547 Recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT credit could not be sustained against a registered dealer under Rule 14, because that provision authorises recovery from the manufacturer or provider of output service, not the dealer in the manner adopted. Penalty under Rule 25 was upheld where the record showed non-receipt of goods and invoices issued without actual supply, but it was reduced to a nominal amount in view of the circumstances. Penalty on the Managing Director was deleted because no show-cause notice had been issued to him, and a penalty cannot stand without notice and an opportunity of defence. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248547 Recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT credit could not be sustained against a registered dealer under Rule 14, because that provision authorises recovery from the manufacturer or provider of output service, not the dealer in the manner adopted. Penalty under Rule 25 was upheld where the record showed non-receipt of goods and invoices issued without actual supply, but it was reduced to a nominal amount in view of the circumstances. Penalty on the Managing Director was deleted because no show-cause notice had been issued to him, and a penalty cannot stand without notice and an opportunity of defence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248547