https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251710 A dealer or manufacturer removing inputs as such can pass on only the CENVAT credit actually available on those inputs, not a higher credit based on an inflated rate. Where the record showed that duty suffered on the inputs was 8% but credit was passed on at 12%, the conduct was treated as wrongful availment and passing of excess credit through manipulation of entries. The authority also held that the recipient failed to verify the duty actually borne, and the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression was not sustainable on those facts. Recovery and penalties were therefore justified, and the excess credit could not be defended as a mere accounting adjustment. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251710 A dealer or manufacturer removing inputs as such can pass on only the CENVAT credit actually available on those inputs, not a higher credit based on an inflated rate. Where the record showed that duty suffered on the inputs was 8% but credit was passed on at 12%, the conduct was treated as wrongful availment and passing of excess credit through manipulation of entries. The authority also held that the recipient failed to verify the duty actually borne, and the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression was not sustainable on those facts. Recovery and penalties were therefore justified, and the excess credit could not be defended as a mere accounting adjustment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251710