https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33767 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove connivance, suppression of facts, fraud, or misdeclaration when credit was taken on invoices from non-existent or fake suppliers. The record showed non-compliance with the obligation to take reasonable steps under Rule 7(2) and Rule 7(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which justified penalty under Rule 13(1). In the absence of evidence establishing the statutory ingredients for the higher penalty, only the Rule 13(1) penalty was upheld. en-us Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33767 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove connivance, suppression of facts, fraud, or misdeclaration when credit was taken on invoices from non-existent or fake suppliers. The record showed non-compliance with the obligation to take reasonable steps under Rule 7(2) and Rule 7(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which justified penalty under Rule 13(1). In the absence of evidence establishing the statutory ingredients for the higher penalty, only the Rule 13(1) penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33767