https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340711 The case involved a dispute over the imposition of a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without the confiscation of goods. The dealer argued that since there was no confiscation, the penalty was unjustified. However, the Assistant Commissioner contended that the penalty could be imposed for contravening rules to evade duty payment. The Member (Judicial) upheld the penalty, emphasizing the fraudulent passing of irregular CENVAT credit. The decision confirmed that penalties under Rule 25 can be imposed even without confiscation if there is a contravention of rules to evade duty payment, to prevent revenue loss. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340711 The case involved a dispute over the imposition of a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without the confiscation of goods. The dealer argued that since there was no confiscation, the penalty was unjustified. However, the Assistant Commissioner contended that the penalty could be imposed for contravening rules to evade duty payment. The Member (Judicial) upheld the penalty, emphasizing the fraudulent passing of irregular CENVAT credit. The decision confirmed that penalties under Rule 25 can be imposed even without confiscation if there is a contravention of rules to evade duty payment, to prevent revenue loss. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340711