https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4380 Rule 26 penalty was not sustainable against a company that issued invoices in scrap sales where the scrap had been cleared on payment of duty at the factory gate and the buyer was responsible for delivery. On those facts, the necessary knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation was not established. The post-01.03.2007 provision covering issuance of an invoice without delivery of the goods, or abetment thereof, was inapplicable because the dispute related to an earlier period. The larger bench view that a penalty provision in the nature of Rule 209A does not apply to a corporate entity also supported deletion of penalty. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4380 Rule 26 penalty was not sustainable against a company that issued invoices in scrap sales where the scrap had been cleared on payment of duty at the factory gate and the buyer was responsible for delivery. On those facts, the necessary knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation was not established. The post-01.03.2007 provision covering issuance of an invoice without delivery of the goods, or abetment thereof, was inapplicable because the dispute related to an earlier period. The larger bench view that a penalty provision in the nature of Rule 209A does not apply to a corporate entity also supported deletion of penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4380