https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247452 The High Court upheld the penalty imposition under Rule 25(1)(d) and 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite the incorrect invocation of Rule 26(2) in the show cause notice. The appellant's issuance of bogus invoices without actual delivery of goods, enabling duty evasion, justified the penalty. The Court emphasized the distinction between direct duty evasion and facilitation thereof, requiring case-specific penalty analysis. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law emerged, affirming the penalty under the mentioned rules. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247452 The High Court upheld the penalty imposition under Rule 25(1)(d) and 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite the incorrect invocation of Rule 26(2) in the show cause notice. The appellant's issuance of bogus invoices without actual delivery of goods, enabling duty evasion, justified the penalty. The Court emphasized the distinction between direct duty evasion and facilitation thereof, requiring case-specific penalty analysis. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law emerged, affirming the penalty under the mentioned rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247452