https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271027 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposition under Section 11AC of CEA,1944 read with Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules,2002. The appellant successfully argued that the credit was admissible as inputs, not capital goods, and there was no evidence of suppression of facts or mis-declaration to support the penalty. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not sustainable due to the lack of substantial evidence, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the penalty imposition. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:32:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271027 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposition under Section 11AC of CEA,1944 read with Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules,2002. The appellant successfully argued that the credit was admissible as inputs, not capital goods, and there was no evidence of suppression of facts or mis-declaration to support the penalty. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not sustainable due to the lack of substantial evidence, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the penalty imposition. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271027