https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50319 Penalty under rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the authority had already found that suppression or wilful misstatement was absent and the extended limitation period was unavailable. The same factual ingredients governed the demand and the penalty provision, so they could not be treated as present for penalty after being negatived for limitation. Mere wrongful availment or utilisation of credit, without fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or equivalent culpable conduct, was insufficient. The penalty order was set aside. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:03:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50319 Penalty under rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the authority had already found that suppression or wilful misstatement was absent and the extended limitation period was unavailable. The same factual ingredients governed the demand and the penalty provision, so they could not be treated as present for penalty after being negatived for limitation. Mere wrongful availment or utilisation of credit, without fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or equivalent culpable conduct, was insufficient. The penalty order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50319