https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335683 The appellate authority modified the impugned order, partially allowing the penalty imposition on the appellant for availing Cenvat Credit on Input Services for trading activities. The authority found insufficient reasoning to conclude that the appellant had availed the credit through suppression or mis-declaration of facts, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in such cases. The penalty provision under Rule 15(4) of CCR, 2004 was deemed inapplicable to manufacturers like the appellant, leading to the reversal of the penalty decision. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335683 The appellate authority modified the impugned order, partially allowing the penalty imposition on the appellant for availing Cenvat Credit on Input Services for trading activities. The authority found insufficient reasoning to conclude that the appellant had availed the credit through suppression or mis-declaration of facts, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in such cases. The penalty provision under Rule 15(4) of CCR, 2004 was deemed inapplicable to manufacturers like the appellant, leading to the reversal of the penalty decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335683