https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342654 The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, the Director of a company, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for fraudulent availing of Cenvat credit without physical receipt of inputs. The tribunal found that since no physical goods were involved in the fraudulent activity, the penalty under Rule 26 was not applicable. The judgments cited by the appellant's counsel supported this decision, distinguishing the case from situations involving goods liable for confiscation. The appeal was allowed, overturning the penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). en-us Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342654 The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, the Director of a company, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for fraudulent availing of Cenvat credit without physical receipt of inputs. The tribunal found that since no physical goods were involved in the fraudulent activity, the penalty under Rule 26 was not applicable. The judgments cited by the appellant's counsel supported this decision, distinguishing the case from situations involving goods liable for confiscation. The appeal was allowed, overturning the penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342654