https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109920 Penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained against an invoice issuer merely because the recipient had wrongly availed Modvat credit. The contemporaneous statement of the proprietor that goods were sold under the invoice remained unrebutted, and the Department did not produce the transporter's statement or other reliable evidence to show that no goods were supplied. On these facts, liability could not be fastened on the issuer by inference alone. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore correct in setting aside the penalty, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:07:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109920 Penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained against an invoice issuer merely because the recipient had wrongly availed Modvat credit. The contemporaneous statement of the proprietor that goods were sold under the invoice remained unrebutted, and the Department did not produce the transporter's statement or other reliable evidence to show that no goods were supplied. On these facts, liability could not be fastened on the issuer by inference alone. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore correct in setting aside the penalty, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109920