https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365799 The court upheld the liability for interest on wrongly availed credit due to lack of substantiating evidence and justified the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's argument that no interest should be demanded since the credit was reversed without utilization was deemed unsubstantiated. The court ruled that penalty imposition does not require proof of intent to evade duty when wrongful availment of credit is established. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability for interest and penalty imposition. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 02:11:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365799 The court upheld the liability for interest on wrongly availed credit due to lack of substantiating evidence and justified the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's argument that no interest should be demanded since the credit was reversed without utilization was deemed unsubstantiated. The court ruled that penalty imposition does not require proof of intent to evade duty when wrongful availment of credit is established. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability for interest and penalty imposition. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365799