https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337288 Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained for the period before 1.3.2007 because that provision was not available in the manner invoked, and no penalty was proposed under the alternative provisions. For the post-1.3.2007 period, penalty was confined to the specific admitted invoice transaction and upheld only to the extent of the value involved. Any rebate adjustment had to be limited to the penalty actually sustained, so the set-off was restricted to the upheld amount and the remaining rebate claim was allowed. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Mar 2017 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337288 Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained for the period before 1.3.2007 because that provision was not available in the manner invoked, and no penalty was proposed under the alternative provisions. For the post-1.3.2007 period, penalty was confined to the specific admitted invoice transaction and upheld only to the extent of the value involved. Any rebate adjustment had to be limited to the penalty actually sustained, so the set-off was restricted to the upheld amount and the remaining rebate claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337288