https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241084 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as then in force, applied to a person dealing with excisable goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, not to a director merely connected with wrongful Cenvat credit taken on bogus invoices. The later insertion of Rule 26(2) from 1-3-2007 covered issuance of invoices without delivery of goods and abetment, but did not extend to a person who only availed ineligible credit. Penalty for wrongful availment of Cenvat credit lay under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and attached to the assessee who took the credit; penalty under Rule 26 against the director was not sustainable. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:05:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241084 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as then in force, applied to a person dealing with excisable goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, not to a director merely connected with wrongful Cenvat credit taken on bogus invoices. The later insertion of Rule 26(2) from 1-3-2007 covered issuance of invoices without delivery of goods and abetment, but did not extend to a person who only availed ineligible credit. Penalty for wrongful availment of Cenvat credit lay under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and attached to the assessee who took the credit; penalty under Rule 26 against the director was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241084