https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239843 Section 11D could not be invoked because the invoices were bogus, no goods were supplied, and the evidence showed only commission was received, so there was no actual collection of duty from buyers. Penalty on the manufacturer was sustained because issuing fake invoices with incorrect particulars to facilitate wrongful credit fell within Rule 173Q(1)(bbb). Penalty on the director was also sustained because involvement in the fake invoicing activity attracted the penal provisions under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The article thus records partial relief only on the duty demand, not on the penalties. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2015 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239843 Section 11D could not be invoked because the invoices were bogus, no goods were supplied, and the evidence showed only commission was received, so there was no actual collection of duty from buyers. Penalty on the manufacturer was sustained because issuing fake invoices with incorrect particulars to facilitate wrongful credit fell within Rule 173Q(1)(bbb). Penalty on the director was also sustained because involvement in the fake invoicing activity attracted the penal provisions under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The article thus records partial relief only on the duty demand, not on the penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239843