Fake CENVAT Credit Case | Transactions Likely “Paper Deals” But CESTAT Reduces Penalty for Limited Role

HomeIndirect TaxesFake CENVAT Credit Case | Transactions Likely “Paper Deals” But CESTAT Reduces...

Fake CENVAT Credit Case | Transactions Likely “Paper Deals” But CESTAT Reduces Penalty for Limited Role

Indirect Taxes Top Stories

Published on

28/03/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

Fake CENVAT Credit Case | Transactions Likely “Paper Deals” But CESTAT Reduces Penalty for Limited Role

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, has reduced a penalty imposed on businessman Shri Krishna Gopal Rathi from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh in a case involving alleged fraudulent CENVAT credit transactions. The bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has upheld the finding…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Fake CENVAT Credit

Fake CENVAT Credit Case | Transactions Likely “Paper Deals” But CESTAT Reduces Penalty for Limited Role

Membership Required

Latest articles

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

Whether ‘3 Months’ U/s 73(10) of CGST Act Means Exactly 3 Calendar Months or 90 Days? SC Issues Notice

More like this

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

About us

Company

Categories