https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205863 Penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held sustainable against a person who issued invoices without actual delivery of goods and thereby enabled wrongful credit. The insertion of Rule 26(2) did not exclude liability for such conduct, because the acts fell within the broader reach of Rule 26(1) as dealing with excisable goods known to be liable to confiscation. The factual finding that the invoices were used to facilitate evasion supported imposition of penalty, and the challenge failed. The penalty order was restored. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205863 Penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held sustainable against a person who issued invoices without actual delivery of goods and thereby enabled wrongful credit. The insertion of Rule 26(2) did not exclude liability for such conduct, because the acts fell within the broader reach of Rule 26(1) as dealing with excisable goods known to be liable to confiscation. The factual finding that the invoices were used to facilitate evasion supported imposition of penalty, and the challenge failed. The penalty order was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205863