https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188716 The notification allowed withdrawal of the concession and imposition of restrictions where the prescribed authority, on records and evidence, formed a prima facie belief that the manufacturer had knowingly committed the specified violation. The revenue material showed that the assessee first took full CENVAT credit in one entry and later claimed the same credit again through multiple split entries against the same invoice. The explanation of bona fide mistake was rejected because the manner of entry indicated deliberate duplication. The conduct was treated as sufficient to infer knowledge and mens rea for invoking the deterrent mechanism, and the challenge to the restriction failed. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188716 The notification allowed withdrawal of the concession and imposition of restrictions where the prescribed authority, on records and evidence, formed a prima facie belief that the manufacturer had knowingly committed the specified violation. The revenue material showed that the assessee first took full CENVAT credit in one entry and later claimed the same credit again through multiple split entries against the same invoice. The explanation of bona fide mistake was rejected because the manner of entry indicated deliberate duplication. The conduct was treated as sufficient to infer knowledge and mens rea for invoking the deterrent mechanism, and the challenge to the restriction failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188716