Tribunal affirms Commissioner decision, dismissing revenue appeal & cross-objection. Rule 26 penalty set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and disposing of the cross-objection. The order was pronounced in the open court, concluding the legal proceedings. The penalty under Rule 26 was set aside as the goods received at a different depot due to operational changes did not violate statutory provisions. Rules 11(2) and 26(2) were deemed inapplicable as there was no issuance of invoices without goods delivery or enabling ineligible benefits.

---

---

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 for abetting receipt of excisable goods against invalid documents and passing on irregular cenvat credit.
- Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the adjudication order.
- Applicability of Rule 11(2) and Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, faced a penalty under Rule 26 for receiving goods against invalid documents and passing on irregular cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal by the revenue, with the respondent filing a cross-objection.

2. The revenue argued that goods were consigned to one depot but received at another, violating statutory provisions. They sought the reversal of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

3. The respondent's counsel presented case laws and statutory provisions, explaining that due to a depot shift, invoices reflected the old address. They demonstrated through ERP system details and logistic records that no violation occurred. They argued against the penalty under Rule 26(2) and cited legal precedents to support their case.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, examined the records and found that goods addressed to one depot were received at another due to operational changes. The invoice correctly identified the consignee, meeting Rule 11(2) requirements.

5. Rule 26(2) allows penalties for issuing invoices without goods delivery or enabling ineligible benefits. However, as the respondent did not issue such invoices or enable inadmissible credits, Rules 11(2) and 26(2) were deemed inapplicable.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and disposing of the cross-objection. The order was pronounced in the open court, concluding the legal proceedings.

---