https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295272 Penalty enhancement on the Revenue's appeal was rejected because the Commissioner had already weighed the evidence and imposed penalty after considering the record. The dispute centred on alleged discrepancies in the declared premises, invalid invoices and the extent of CENVAT credit passed on, but no further evidence showed a wider conspiracy or additional complicity by the dealer beyond the lease and registration issues. In the absence of a stronger evidentiary basis, the Tribunal held that interference with the penalty quantum was not warranted, and the Revenue's request for enhancement failed. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 May 2021 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295272 Penalty enhancement on the Revenue's appeal was rejected because the Commissioner had already weighed the evidence and imposed penalty after considering the record. The dispute centred on alleged discrepancies in the declared premises, invalid invoices and the extent of CENVAT credit passed on, but no further evidence showed a wider conspiracy or additional complicity by the dealer beyond the lease and registration issues. In the absence of a stronger evidentiary basis, the Tribunal held that interference with the penalty quantum was not warranted, and the Revenue's request for enhancement failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295272