https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759849 The appeal involved the incorrect availment of CENVAT credit by a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, leading to penalties under Rule 15(2) of the CCR. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty but upheld it partially. Upon further appeal, the Member (Technical) found the penalty disproportionate, citing no evidence of intent to evade duty. The penalty was modified to align with statutory provisions under Section 11A(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief, and the impugned order was partially modified. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:27:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759849 The appeal involved the incorrect availment of CENVAT credit by a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, leading to penalties under Rule 15(2) of the CCR. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty but upheld it partially. Upon further appeal, the Member (Technical) found the penalty disproportionate, citing no evidence of intent to evade duty. The penalty was modified to align with statutory provisions under Section 11A(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief, and the impugned order was partially modified. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759849