https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204797 Before 01.03.2007, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not attracted where registered dealers merely issued invoices or facilitated modvatable documents without actual manufacture, sale, transfer, delivery, or movement of goods. The reasoning distinguished such paper transactions from cases involving diversion of duty-paid goods and treated the 01.03.2007 amendment by Notification No. 8/2007-C.E. (N.T.) as introducing penal consequences for this conduct. Accordingly, persons dealing only in invoices without physical supply of goods were not liable to penalty for the pre-amendment period. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204797 Before 01.03.2007, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not attracted where registered dealers merely issued invoices or facilitated modvatable documents without actual manufacture, sale, transfer, delivery, or movement of goods. The reasoning distinguished such paper transactions from cases involving diversion of duty-paid goods and treated the 01.03.2007 amendment by Notification No. 8/2007-C.E. (N.T.) as introducing penal consequences for this conduct. Accordingly, persons dealing only in invoices without physical supply of goods were not liable to penalty for the pre-amendment period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204797