https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211040 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in relation to alleged wrongful credit availment and invoice-related misconduct at the Nasik factory. The penalty order, passed by the Commissioner, Indore, did not establish how the invoked penal provisions applied to the alleged issuance of invoices without goods, nor how jurisdiction existed to penalise conduct linked to another factory. The reasoning based on inadmissible credit and mens rea was found insufficient to support the penalty. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and consequential relief followed. en-us Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211040 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in relation to alleged wrongful credit availment and invoice-related misconduct at the Nasik factory. The penalty order, passed by the Commissioner, Indore, did not establish how the invoked penal provisions applied to the alleged issuance of invoices without goods, nor how jurisdiction existed to penalise conduct linked to another factory. The reasoning based on inadmissible credit and mens rea was found insufficient to support the penalty. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211040