https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416546 The case involved allegations of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit and removal of finished goods without duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) but reduced the amount due to circumstances and the company's acceptance of fraudulent credit demands under a scheme. The appellant was found liable for passing credit wrongly, but the penalty was reduced, considering factors such as clerical errors and lack of concrete evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the penalty amount. en-us Fri, 31 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jan 2022 08:54:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416546 The case involved allegations of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit and removal of finished goods without duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) but reduced the amount due to circumstances and the company's acceptance of fraudulent credit demands under a scheme. The appellant was found liable for passing credit wrongly, but the penalty was reduced, considering factors such as clerical errors and lack of concrete evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the penalty amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416546