TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anand Kr. Pasari, Both Advocate Shri Akshat Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. K. Dikshit, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER ORDER : [ PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL ] The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the appellant and vide order dated 15.01.2025, 7. it was observed in the said proceedings, as under : "In view of the above position of law, I am of the view that acts and omissions on the part of the appellant were not deliberate, rather they were taken under bona fide belief t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en alleged that the appellant has deliberately not enquired or verified the documents prescribed for availment of the said CENVAT Credit and avoided the said action by simply accepting the request as well as revising E.R.-1 Returns on the basis of details of CENVAT Credit submitted by the said assessee. 12. We find that, in this case, the ld. adjudicating authority has observed that the scope of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14. However, considering the fact that disciplinary action has been initiated against the appellant and while dealing with the disciplinary action, it has been observed that the act or omission on the part of the appellant were not deliberate, but rather were taken under a bona fide belief that the assessee's intimation was correct, as there is no allegation for any extraneous consideration ....