https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290742 Wrong availment and passing on of inadmissible CENVAT credit through a bogus unit for fraudulent export rebate claims was held to attract penalty under Rule 13(1), not Section 11AC, because no duty had been determined under Section 11A(2) and no excisable goods were actually manufactured. On those facts, the adjudicating authority correctly treated the contravention as one of wrongful credit availment and applied the minimum penalty under Rule 13(1); penalty under Section 11AC, Rule 15(1) and Rule 26 was found inapplicable to the other noticees, while Rule 27 was held appropriate for the proprietary and partnership concerns. The Revenue's challenge to penalty adequacy failed. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:41:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290742 Wrong availment and passing on of inadmissible CENVAT credit through a bogus unit for fraudulent export rebate claims was held to attract penalty under Rule 13(1), not Section 11AC, because no duty had been determined under Section 11A(2) and no excisable goods were actually manufactured. On those facts, the adjudicating authority correctly treated the contravention as one of wrongful credit availment and applied the minimum penalty under Rule 13(1); penalty under Section 11AC, Rule 15(1) and Rule 26 was found inapplicable to the other noticees, while Rule 27 was held appropriate for the proprietary and partnership concerns. The Revenue's challenge to penalty adequacy failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290742