https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76448 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent assessee under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Court found that the rectifiable procedural lapse of endorsing invoices by the Daman Office in the name of the Mumbai Office did not warrant the imposition of the penalty. The appeal was summarily dismissed, affirming the importance of rectifiability in procedural lapses without denying entitled benefits to the assessee. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76448 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent assessee under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Court found that the rectifiable procedural lapse of endorsing invoices by the Daman Office in the name of the Mumbai Office did not warrant the imposition of the penalty. The appeal was summarily dismissed, affirming the importance of rectifiability in procedural lapses without denying entitled benefits to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76448