Fake invoices and wrongful Cenvat credit justified penalty where active abetment was unrebutted.

Knowingly issuing fake invoices without supplying goods, and thereby facilitating inadmissible Cenvat credit, justifies penalty where the record shows active abetment and the factual findings remain unrebutted. The Tribunal relied on the admitted fraudulent availment in the main case, the appellant's unchallenged role as a conduit, and supporting direct and circumstantial material to hold that the penalty under Rule 25(1) and Rule 26(2)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustainable. In the absence of any evidence to displace those findings, the challenge to the penalty failed and the impugned order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant for issuing fake invoices and facilitating fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit was sustainable under Rule 25(1) and Rule 26(2)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant did not contest the findings recorded in the impugned order, and the record showed that the appellant had issued invoices without supplying goods, thereby enabling the main noticees to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit. The Tribunal relied on the admitted fraud in the main case, the unchallenged factual findings, and the direct and circumstantial material showing the appellant's active role as a conduit in the wrongful credit availment. In the absence of any evidence to displace those findings, the imposition of penalty was found justified.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 25(1) and Rule 26(2)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld and the challenge to the penalty failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed and the impugned penalty order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who knowingly issues fake invoices and facilitates wrongful availment of Cenvat credit is liable to penalty when the record shows active abetment and the factual findings remain unrebutted.

---