https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188213 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty on the manufacturer under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authority found that there was a lack of direct evidence against the manufacturer regarding their alleged involvement in fake transactions through issuance of Cenvatable invoices. As no concrete proof was presented to show that the manufacturer issued invoices without supplying goods, the penalty was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the manufacturer. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:46:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188213 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty on the manufacturer under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authority found that there was a lack of direct evidence against the manufacturer regarding their alleged involvement in fake transactions through issuance of Cenvatable invoices. As no concrete proof was presented to show that the manufacturer issued invoices without supplying goods, the penalty was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188213