https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257486 Penalty under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 was held sustainable only against the person who actually took the inadmissible credit, so the penalty on the individual was set aside because the company had taken the credit. The higher penalty under Rule 13(2) could not be imposed where the notice proceeded on wrongful availment but did not establish the required intentional conduct, so that penalty was also disallowed. On the facts, the company had already reversed the credit and forfeited the related export refund, which justified leniency, and its penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. en-us Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:17:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257486 Penalty under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 was held sustainable only against the person who actually took the inadmissible credit, so the penalty on the individual was set aside because the company had taken the credit. The higher penalty under Rule 13(2) could not be imposed where the notice proceeded on wrongful availment but did not establish the required intentional conduct, so that penalty was also disallowed. On the facts, the company had already reversed the credit and forfeited the related export refund, which justified leniency, and its penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257486