https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343942 The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed in a case involving fraudulent transactions and misuse of cenvat credit. The court upheld penalties imposed on M/s AIPL under Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to fraudulent practices and willful misdeclarations. The judgment emphasized the lack of prosecution and defense by the parties, inconsistencies in records, and the absence of production evidence at M/s AIPL, leading to the imposition of penalties and confirming the demand disallowing cenvat credit. en-us Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343942 The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed in a case involving fraudulent transactions and misuse of cenvat credit. The court upheld penalties imposed on M/s AIPL under Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to fraudulent practices and willful misdeclarations. The judgment emphasized the lack of prosecution and defense by the parties, inconsistencies in records, and the absence of production evidence at M/s AIPL, leading to the imposition of penalties and confirming the demand disallowing cenvat credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343942