https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269748 Penalty under Rule 26 was attracted where evidence showed that a person associated with the appellant materially facilitated procurement and use of inputs and documents enabling another unit to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit. The Department's reliance on statements and surrounding circumstances was found sufficient to reject the contention that the employee acted only in an individual capacity. The penalty was nevertheless considered excessive on the facts, and the quantum was reduced. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269748 Penalty under Rule 26 was attracted where evidence showed that a person associated with the appellant materially facilitated procurement and use of inputs and documents enabling another unit to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit. The Department's reliance on statements and surrounding circumstances was found sufficient to reject the contention that the employee acted only in an individual capacity. The penalty was nevertheless considered excessive on the facts, and the quantum was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269748