https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4378 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unwarranted where Cenvat credit had been taken on the understanding that inspection, testing and similar processes amounted to manufacture. Although the credit was irregular because no manufacturing activity had been carried out, the dispute was treated as one of statutory interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. The respondent reversed the credit and paid interest after the irregularity was pointed out, which supported the view that penal action was unnecessary. The order setting aside the penalty was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4378 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unwarranted where Cenvat credit had been taken on the understanding that inspection, testing and similar processes amounted to manufacture. Although the credit was irregular because no manufacturing activity had been carried out, the dispute was treated as one of statutory interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. The respondent reversed the credit and paid interest after the irregularity was pointed out, which supported the view that penal action was unnecessary. The order setting aside the penalty was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4378