https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51351 Mandatory penalty for unaccounted Modvat inputs was set aside because the notice did not allege fraud, wilful suppression, collusion, or intent to evade duty; mere failure to account for inputs justified recovery under the lesser provision, not the special penalty. Penalty and confiscation for excess radiators were also rejected for want of evidence of culpable intent. Modvat credit was allowed for February 1999 on proper utilisation of inputs, but disallowance for March 1999 was upheld as the inputs were not satisfactorily accounted for. Penalty for excess stock under Rule 226 was sustained, though reduced to the prescribed maximum. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:42:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51351 Mandatory penalty for unaccounted Modvat inputs was set aside because the notice did not allege fraud, wilful suppression, collusion, or intent to evade duty; mere failure to account for inputs justified recovery under the lesser provision, not the special penalty. Penalty and confiscation for excess radiators were also rejected for want of evidence of culpable intent. Modvat credit was allowed for February 1999 on proper utilisation of inputs, but disallowance for March 1999 was upheld as the inputs were not satisfactorily accounted for. Penalty for excess stock under Rule 226 was sustained, though reduced to the prescribed maximum. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51351