https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419062 The appeal filed by Appellant 1 (Company) was dismissed, upholding the disallowance of Cenvat credit and the penalties imposed. The appeal filed by Appellant 2 (Director) was allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 due to the lack of established "mens rea." The partial relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeal) regarding confiscation and fines was not challenged and thus remained in effect. Penalties on other co-noticees under Rule 26 were not specifically addressed and thus remained unaffected. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2022 06:48:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419062 The appeal filed by Appellant 1 (Company) was dismissed, upholding the disallowance of Cenvat credit and the penalties imposed. The appeal filed by Appellant 2 (Director) was allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 due to the lack of established "mens rea." The partial relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeal) regarding confiscation and fines was not challenged and thus remained in effect. Penalties on other co-noticees under Rule 26 were not specifically addressed and thus remained unaffected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419062