https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431118 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no evidence of fraudulent intent in the disputed availment and reversal of CENVAT Credit. It held that the penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, could not be imposed as the appellant had paid the disputed amount with interest before the show cause notice. The Tribunal invoked sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, to reject penalty imposition, setting aside the confirmed penalty amount. This case underscores the importance of assessing circumstances and statutory provisions in CENVAT Credit matters to determine penalty applicability. en-us Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Dec 2022 14:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431118 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no evidence of fraudulent intent in the disputed availment and reversal of CENVAT Credit. It held that the penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, could not be imposed as the appellant had paid the disputed amount with interest before the show cause notice. The Tribunal invoked sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, to reject penalty imposition, setting aside the confirmed penalty amount. This case underscores the importance of assessing circumstances and statutory provisions in CENVAT Credit matters to determine penalty applicability. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431118