https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344904 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable where the dispute concerned only interpretation of valuation for payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in a works contract situation and no mala fide or suppression was shown. The demand was therefore not supported by the penal provision. Separately, a further differential demand of 8% was set aside because the goods were manufactured by the job worker, who had already reversed the amount under Rule 6(3)(b); on those facts, no additional recovery could be fastened on the appellant on the same basis. The corresponding penalty also failed. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jul 2017 18:34:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344904 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable where the dispute concerned only interpretation of valuation for payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in a works contract situation and no mala fide or suppression was shown. The demand was therefore not supported by the penal provision. Separately, a further differential demand of 8% was set aside because the goods were manufactured by the job worker, who had already reversed the amount under Rule 6(3)(b); on those facts, no additional recovery could be fastened on the appellant on the same basis. The corresponding penalty also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344904