https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177579 Where the questions on Cenvat credit for imported capital goods under Rule 57Q(3) and on penalty were identical to those already decided by a binding Division Bench precedent, the Karnataka HC followed that earlier ruling and answered both issues in favour of the Revenue. The claim to Cenvat credit was not sustained, and the Tribunal's setting aside of penalty was also not upheld. The appeal was consequently allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside, subject to the stated pending special leave petition. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:08:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177579 Where the questions on Cenvat credit for imported capital goods under Rule 57Q(3) and on penalty were identical to those already decided by a binding Division Bench precedent, the Karnataka HC followed that earlier ruling and answered both issues in favour of the Revenue. The claim to Cenvat credit was not sustained, and the Tribunal's setting aside of penalty was also not upheld. The appeal was consequently allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside, subject to the stated pending special leave petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177579